Justification for the Iraq War and the Abandonment of Afghanistan
The United States invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban-controlled government was defiantly sheltering the Al Qaeda leaders who planned the September 11th attacks on the United States. There was no need for an exhaustive search for evidence; Mullah Omar was married to one of Osama Bin Laden's daughters and was openly allied with him. Diplomacy was attempted, but to no avail. Deadlines for handing over the terrorists were ignored. A worldwide coalition was built, and with the backing of the United Nations, we invaded Afghanistan and killed or drove out Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.
The next step should have been a massive rebuilding of a nation torn apart by war since the Soviet invasion more than twenty years earlier. The Northern Alliance and the Afghan people as a whole supported us, fought beside us, and had every reason to expect that we would stay and help them make Afghanistan a viable, democratic nation. However, this was not the path chosen by the Bush administration. President Bush had looked for ways to invade Iraq even before 9/11, perhaps ever since Saddam had tried to have George H. W. Bush assassinated in 1993, and now the climate for war against Saddam Hussein was right.
But unlike the Afghan conflict, there was no evidence linking Iraq to terrorism. After more than 10 years of inspections, there was no proof that Saddam had developed weapons of mass destruction. And there was limited international support for military action. We went in anyway, mainly as a result of fabricated or exaggerated evidence.
Four years later, the situation is worse than it was before the invasion. Iraq is in shambles, with more terrorist activity than we could have ever imagined. There is no infrastructure, no electricity, and no jobs in spite of billions of dollars spent on reconstruction. Because of our inattention to Afghanistan, there has been no economic development there either, and the Taliban are regaining lost ground. The country's main export is once again heroin, which had largely disappeared before the invasion.
We handled the post-war aspect of Afghanistan wrong, but was the Afghan war justified? Absolutely. Was the Iraq war justified? Not even close.
Published by Bruno Somerset
I am a novelist & freelance writer living in Texas. I write mainly on arts and entertainment, politics and religion, with the occasional sports and humor piece thrown in to keep things interesting. View profile
- Unique, Strange, and Weird Foods in the United StatesAre your taste buds in the mood for something different? Try some of these unique foods found in different parts of the United States.
- Why is Soccer Not Popular in the United States?An in-depth look at why the sport of soccer is accepted around the world, but not in the United States of America.
Why the United States Will Fall to Second-World Status in the Next 50 Ye...The United States is likely to fall to second-world status in the next 50 years if it can't get its social problems under control and here's why.
The End of Al-Qaeda in Iraq - the Unheralded VictoryHashed over and ignored by the popular media, Sunni Insurgent Groups are turning on al-Qaeda in Iraq, creating an atmosphere of mistrust and disassembling the violent group piec...
United States to Play for Gold Medal in Women's Soccer with Win Over Japan By defeating Japan by a score of 4-2, the United States advances to the Gold Medal Game of Women's Soccer against Brazil.
- Kabul Afghanistan Safety: For Americans
- Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the Rise of the Taliban
- Justifying the War in Afghanistan
- Afghanistan, Opium, and Other Signs of Failure in the War on Terror
- Canadians Establishing Credit in the United States
- How Many People Are in the United States?
- The Biggest Money Machine Ever, in World History, is the Government of the United...
6 Comments
Post a CommentYou're not giving much in the way of background references. For instance, to say the Taliban refused to give up Osama bin Ladin glosses over the situation. A source of funds for the Bush criminal empire and a Saudi prince who worked to fund CIA-led operations against the Soviet occupation is an unlikely person to request - make that order - the Afghans to surrender. Yet they did not refuse - merely asked that some of the basic norms of law and form be adhered to.
I'm afraid I find your treatment of both situations sketchy indeed. May I suggest you go to YouTube and look up 'Cheney'. You will find his TV interview explaining exactly why invading Iraq is a bad idea - from the time when George Bush Sr. did not do so.
Well, I didn't find the article incredibly amazing...sorry. I am annoyed by Marquis comment though. Marquis, George W. did in fact link 9-11 and Saddam/Iraq. Saying otherwise is living in denial of the facts. I don't argue that NOW, post-invasion-mess, Dubya says there was never any link, but that's not the point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1241327,00.html
And the so-called link was also reinforced by other Republicans...even after the 9-11 commission report put the link to rest as false.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/
I'm not picking a fight here, I just want these links to be beside your statement for clarification purposes.
Thanks for the comments Marquis. I stated in my article that Bush was looking to invade Iraq before 9/11, so I didn't link the two. Bush did link the two, by the way, saying that Iraqi intelligence officers met with the Hamburg cell of the 9/11 plotters beforehand. If he hadn't linked them, then what exactly would the invasion of Iraq have to do with the war on terror?
I appreciate both comments. I didn't mention oil because my main point is how we left the job unfinished in a war that we truly needed to fight, but the fact is nothing we do in the Middle East can be separated completely from oil and its economic ramifications. If all the government cared about was democracy and human rights, we would have sent the 18th Airborne Corps in Darfur three years ago.
OK, first, good article...second, Steve..there is no "cospiracy" to buy into about the war being about oil...you say the war is illogical..to any sensible person yes..but it is very much for oil..with the new oil deals in the Iraqi Constitution, big oil is assured BILLIONS..the "victory" that bush seeks is one with unprecedented oil profits, not to mention Halliburton..there was only one other reason for this "war" and it is damn bush family pride...oil and pride, that's it, baby!
Nice points, that really puts it in perspective. Personally, I don't completely buy into the conspiracy theories that the war was all about oil, and this is one of the first articles I've seen that doesn't use them. I'm against the war because it is illogical and is inevitable useless, among other reasons, but I don't like it when people make theories that are even more illogical and ill-thought that this war to push their views. Good stuff, keep it up.