Don't Forget Why We're in Afghanistan and Iraq

[Rittmester]

Don't Forget Why We're in Afghanistan and Iraq

- We're in a long war against Islamic terrorism.

By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, Sept. 7, 2009

Right though I so very often am, it always makes me feel distinctly queasy to find myself in the majority. A few weeks ago, I reported (http://www.slate.com/id/2223056/) Rory Stewart's increasing misgivings (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html) about the course being followed by NATO and the United States in Afghanistan. (Stewart has seemed to me both the shrewdest supporter as well as the smartest critic of the counter-Taliban effort—don't miss what I quoted him as saying on both sides of the case.)

Now it seems that every columnist from George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html) to Tom Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06friedman.html) has decided that we are being played for suckers by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and drawn into a lethally baited trap by a Taliban that is increasingly able to pose as the voice of the Pashtun people. Some appalling (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74954.html) disclosures (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/world/asia/07fraud.html?ref=world) from the recent Afghan elections seem to lend support to both of these dire conclusions.

On the other hand, if I had been writing a few months ago, I would have been—and, in fact, was (http://www.slate.com/id/2213246/)—most worried by the apparent collapse of Pakistani government and society in the face of Pashtun/Taliban aggression on that side of the border. A fertile and prosperous and advanced valley in the Swat district, only miles from the capital city, had been ceded without a fight (http://www.slate.com/id/2211487/). A long nightfall appeared to be beginning, presaged by a torrent of refugees. Now, it is a trifle early to speak with any certainty, but four more recent things appear to have happened. First and most important, many local people have mobilized to protest, and to resist, the evident horrors of Taliban rule. Second, the Pakistani army seems, at least for now, to have recovered some of its nerve and to be contesting the terrain. Third, American drone strikes have pinpointed and killed at least one especially ghastly Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7163626.stm), who, among other crimes, was the probable organizer of the murder of Benazir Bhutto. Fourth, there are believable reports of a squabble among the Pakistani Taliban about the succession to this gangster. None of this would have seemed very probable six months back.

The needle oscillates, and will continue to do so, but the four requisites are in place: citizens rejecting theocracy and its partner, organized crime; an indigenous army that fights for its own reasons; American airstrikes that are careful and discriminating; and the development of splits that can be exploited among the jihadists. A mixture not unlike this worked in Iraq, at least to the point where the conflict could be redefined. It is not yet inevitable that a comparable outcome is beyond reach in Afghanistan.
The question of whether we can or should protect potentially pluralist regimes, whatever their shortcomings, either directly or from "over the horizon" is not, as some critics condescendingly put it, a matter of "babysitting" or "adoption." It is a question of how long-term we are prepared to think. And here are two long-term considerations: The first is the training and traction that will be required for a long war against Islamic terrorism, and the second is the inescapable question of Iran.
However much and however justifiably the press prefers to lay the emphasis on stories of "overstretch" or "post-traumatic stress disorder," it remains the case that we have been schooling a superb generation of soldiers who have the irreplaceable advantage of having fought, and in many cases vanquished, the deadliest imaginable enemies in the most arduous possible terrain. This means that if, say, the government of the Philippines or Indonesia or India or any of the other Asian democracies should request assistance against the same foe, we would be able to supply them with a wealth of expertise as well as a fair bit of muscle. Whatever political decisions are made about our posture toward the rather sketchy Karzai or Maliki (http://www.slate.com/id/2146765/) governments, the long-term abilities conferred by this bitterly won battle-hardening constitute an asset that is unquantifiable. And it isn't merely combat experience, essential as that may be, but the learned ability to find ways of isolating, discrediting, and dividing the terrorists.

A presence in Iraq and Afghanistan also means that the recent coup (http://www.slate.com/id/2211487/) by the Revolutionary Guards in the all-important country of Iran is a coup that already faces containment. Just across two of its main frontiers are some pretty formidable contingents that the dictatorship must always keep in mind. This consideration is likely to become ever more important as the crisis of the mullahs deepens. Until recently, they would have seen at least one clear way out of their cul-de-sac: another holy war with a rival or neighbor, most probably a Sunni Arab one. Among the extremists in Tehran, there have already been bellicose noises about Bahrain, for example: a monarchical Arab mini-state with a majority Shiite population that some claim to be rightfully Persian. Given the rapid progress that it has made toward nuclear capability, and the no-less-rapid way that it has alienated its own people, the temptation for the Ahmadinejad regime to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/2kh4_4_5.html)" and to appeal to tribal and religious emotions is already fairly great. Now, try to picture the foregoing equation with the U.S. military presence removed, let alone with it having admitted defeat.

On its own, of course, the Iranian menace would not justify keeping forces in two neighboring countries. Nor could the presence be justified by the opportunities for training that it provides. But we don't have the right to forget why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place: to make up for past crimes of both omission and commission and to help safeguard emergent systems of self-government that have the same deadly enemies as we do and to which, not quite incidentally, we gave our word.


http://www.slate.com/id/2227227/?from=rss

I like this guy.

[Universal_Soldier]

I like this guy.

yea he's articulate...when he's not high!

[Estopped]

Hitchens is full of ****. That article is embarrassingly bad. It's got more holes than a towerblock of swiss cheese. Part of the problem is that he's lumping in geo-political issue's (like Iran) that concern state actions with general state instability (like Pakistan and Afghanistan). He just comes across looking confused and there is no coherance to his writing.

For a start Iraq was supposedly about WMD's. Secondly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deposed two anti-Iranian regimes that were "containing" Iran and then replacing them with two pro-Iranian governments that want more cooperation with Iran. Then he says "another" holy war as if Iran has had several holy wars. I'd like to see him provide an example of a few holy wars that state's are in considering that "holy war" is something that is generally associated with those non-state actors and the concept of Jihad.

On other issue's Hitchens can be quite interesting. But on Iraq and anything to do with religion/geo-politics he's terrible. This article is fluff and nothing more. He ****s out this article and will sadly get paid for such nebulous drivel.

[Hollis]

For a start Iraq was supposedly about WMD's. Secondly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deposed two anti-Iranian regimes that were "containing" Iran and then replacing them with two pro-Iranian governments that want more cooperation with Iran. Then he says "another" holy war as if Iran has had several holy wars. I'd like to see him provide an example of a few holy wars that state's are in considering that "holy war" is something that is generally associated with those non-state actors and the concept of Jihad.

On other issue's Hitchens can be quite interesting. But on Iraq and anything to do with religion/geo-politics he's terrible. This article is fluff and nothing more. He ****s out this article and will sadly get paid for such nebulous drivel.

I guess you missed the UN resolution to invade Iraq, what was there 11 or 12 reasons, not just one.


Rant on.........




United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution) adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) under Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660), Resolution 661 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_661), Resolution 678 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678), Resolution 686 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_686), Resolution 687 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687), Resolution 688 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688), Resolution 707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_707&action=edit&redlink=1), Resolution 715 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_715&action=edit&redlink=1), Resolution 986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_986), and Resolution 1284 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1284)). [1] (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/)
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait) for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait). It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

[Estopped]

Rant on.........

Believe what you want. I don't agree with you and the historical revisionism that takes place after WMD's were not found. Fact is that WMD's was the reasoning that was sold to the world in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

But this thread is about the article and I don't want to go off on a tangent.

[Hollis]

Believe what you want. I don't agree with you and the historical revisionism that takes place after WMD's were not found. Fact is that WMD's was the reasoning that was sold to the world in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

But this thread is about the article and I don't want to go off on a tangent.


READ THE UN RESOLUTION....................... is that so hard? It has nothing to do with believing or not believing, it is call "reading comprehension".

[Mu-Meson]

Part of the problem is that he's lumping in geo-political issue's (like Iran) that concern state actions with general state instability (like Pakistan and Afghanistan). He just comes across looking confused and there is no coherance to his writing.


I've come to the conclusion that this is actually an exquisite piece of self-parody. You are the only one here coming across as confused, and incoherent. General state instability vs geo-political issues? WTF are you smoking?

[Estopped]

READ THE UN RESOLUTION....................... is that so hard? It has nothing to do with believing or not believing, it is call "reading comprehension".

I don't agree with you. It's that simple. I'd lay out my reasoning in more detail but the thread isn't about the reasoning for going to war in Iraq. I stand firmly on my point that the war in Iraq.

[Hollis]

I don't agree with you. It's that simple. I'd lay out my reasoning in more detail but the thread isn't about the reasoning for going to war in Iraq. I stand firmly on my point that the war in Iraq.


You are on the wrong forum.



4. Remember this is a pro US, pro GWOT board by it's nature and thus some opinions may not be too welcome particularly if the dissenter is hyperbolic or baiting about their beliefs. Posting anything political in RIP threads will be dealt with severely.


Oh yeah, to be a member here, you did agree to follow the forum rules. So I guess reading comprehension is not your only weakness.

[Estopped]

I've come to the conclusion that this is actually an exquisite piece of self-parody. You are the only one here coming across as confused, and incoherent. General state instability vs geo-political issues? WTF are you smoking?

You may disagree with me. But please don't say i'm confused when it is you who doesn't understand the difference between a state-actor and a non-state actor. Hitchens just lumps them all into one and writes like he's some kind of authority on the matter. He's not.

[Fat Lazy American]

For a start Iraq was supposedly about WMD's. Secondly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deposed two anti-Iranian regimes that were "containing" Iran and then replacing them with two pro-Iranian governments that want more cooperation with Iran.

Well, considering your apologism for the Iranian regime, that means you think this is a positive outcome of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

[DARPA]

READ THE UN RESOLUTION....................... is that so hard? It has nothing to do with believing or not believing, it is call "reading comprehension".

That was how it was sold to me. WMDs.

[Elbs]

That was how it was sold to me. WMDs.

Colin Powell came to your home to sell you the war?

[Hollis]

That was how it was sold to me. WMDs.


And you have been banned from this forum already.

[Nano]

Mr. Hitchens is one awesome comedic writer. This piece of his did not fail to make me laugh.

[zad]

I guess you missed the UN resolution to invade Iraq, what was there 11 or 12 reasons, not just one.


Rant on.........


At the Azores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores) conference of March 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_16), Tony Blair, George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Aznar) announced the imminent deadline of March 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17) for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK Foreign Secretary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Foreign_and_Commonwealth_Affairs) Jack Straw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Straw) explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)). The USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration) and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Council), it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[7] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm)[8] (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php)[9] (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/)

Not everyone takes the 1441 resolution as a carte blanche to invade Irak. Outside USA this was seen just as an excuse of GWB goverment to wage a war on a petroleum rich country after misjudging the implications and consecuences with the result of casualties in the hundred of thousands of deaths. A massive humanitarian and political crisis with depth implications on the long term.

[Gunge]

i think the article is spot on
thanks for the post

[Hollis]

Not everyone takes the 1441 resolution as a carte blanche to invade Irak. Outside USA this was seen just as an excuse of GWB goverment to wage a war on a petroleum rich country after misjudging the implications and consecuences with the result of casualties in the hundred of thousands of deaths. A massive humanitarian and political crisis with depth implications on the long term.


Yes, out side of the US, Saddam had friends who wanted to prolong his abuses of human rights, Ignore the UN restrictions and murder his own people too. Maybe you should check your source. Saddam also owed them lots of money and was their key Oil supplier.


BTW......... did you notice that the UN vote was 100%, term use was:

adopted unanimously

[Chulo]

Hitchens is full of ****. That article is embarrassingly bad. It's got more holes than a towerblock of swiss cheese. Part of the problem is that he's lumping in geo-political issue's (like Iran) that concern state actions with general state instability (like Pakistan and Afghanistan).
It is the issue of macroeconomics in a shell state (read Terrorism and Homeland Security by Jonathan R. White) where he explains the importance of geo-political interference and the development of state instability that then causes the rise of counter-governmental entities.

[Chulo]

Not everyone takes the 1441 resolution as a carte blanche to invade Irak. Outside USA this was seen just as an excuse of GWB goverment to wage a war on a petroleum rich country after misjudging the implications and consecuences with the result of casualties in the hundred of thousands of deaths. A massive humanitarian and political crisis with depth implications on the long term.
and the goal was to get cheap gas?

[Estopped]

It is the issue of macroeconomics in a shell state (read Terrorism and Homeland Security by Jonathan R. White) where he explains the importance of geo-political interference and the development of state instability that then causes the rise of counter-governmental entities.

Hitchens isn't writing on that level and he's not putting that point across. I don't even know why his opinion is even considered. He's a talking head who isn't an authority on the subject. The only plus point is that his article reads quite nicely.

[Chulo]

Hitchens isn't writing on that level and he's not putting that point across. I don't even know why his opinion is even considered. He's a talking head who isn't an authority on the subject. The only plus point is that his article reads quite nicely.
So you are saying, because you dont understand what he is talking about, this article is to be disregarded.

[Estopped]

So you are saying, because you dont understand what he is talking about, this article is to be disregarded.

It's extremely simple to understand.

I'm just saying it's not a good article at all.

[Chulo]

It's extremely simple to understand.

I'm just saying it's not a good article at all.
i think you said more than that

Hitchens is full of ****. That article is embarrassingly bad. It's got more holes than a towerblock of swiss cheese. Part of the problem is that he's lumping in geo-political issue's (like Iran) that concern state actions with general state instability (like Pakistan and Afghanistan). He just comes across looking confused and there is no coherance to his writing.

For a start Iraq was supposedly about WMD's. Secondly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deposed two anti-Iranian regimes that were "containing" Iran and then replacing them with two pro-Iranian governments that want more cooperation with Iran. Then he says "another" holy war as if Iran has had several holy wars. I'd like to see him provide an example of a few holy wars that state's are in considering that "holy war" is something that is generally associated with those non-state actors and the concept of Jihad.

On other issue's Hitchens can be quite interesting. But on Iraq and anything to do with religion/geo-politics he's terrible. This article is fluff and nothing more. He ****s out this article and will sadly get paid for such nebulous drivel.

You brought up things you though were issues with his article. And i think several members pointed out that it was not the case. Sounds more like he twisted your panties in a bunch sometime ago

[Estopped]

i think you said more than that

You brought up things you though were issues with his article. And i think several members pointed out that it was not the case. Sounds more like he twisted your panties in a bunch sometime ago

There's nothing wrong with what I've wrote.

[timetraveller]

Peace people ,, everyone is entitled to there own opinion be it right or wrong let's leave it at that please .....

[Chulo]

There's nothing wrong with what I've wrote.

Hitchens is full of ****. That article is embarrassingly bad. It's got more holes than a towerblock of swiss cheese. Part of the problem is that he's lumping in geo-political issue's (like Iran) that concern state actions with general state instability (like Pakistan and Afghanistan). He just comes across looking confused and there is no coherance to his writing.
Like I said, there is a direct link between the geo-political issues and state instability. In this case, there is a very close mesh set of issues that involve Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.



For a start Iraq was supposedly about WMD's. Secondly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deposed two anti-Iranian regimes that were "containing" Iran and then replacing them with two pro-Iranian governments that want more cooperation with Iran. Then he says "another" holy war as if Iran has had several holy wars. I'd like to see him provide an example of a few holy wars that state's are in considering that "holy war" is something that is generally associated with those non-state actors and the concept of Jihad.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4396106&postcount=4 that would be HolliS 's reply
Good to know that U.S went into the past after they liberated Iraq and got the UN resolutions rewritten.


On other issue's Hitchens can be quite interesting. But on Iraq and anything to do with religion/geo-politics he's terrible. This article is fluff and nothing more. He ****s out this article and will sadly get paid for such nebulous drivelYour interpretations on state-actors and a non-state actors in that specific geo-political sphere with regard to religious and political standings and the macroeconomic developments due to actions taken after the invasion of Iraq seems to be devoid of the preexisting conditions that developed well before 1991. And I think any assumptions built on limited information would be faulty

[ting]

Yes, out side of the US, Saddam had friends who wanted to prolong his abuses of human rights, Ignore the UN restrictions and murder his own people too. Maybe you should check your source. Saddam also owed them lots of money and was their key Oil supplier.


BTW......... did you notice that the UN vote was 100%, term use was:

adopted unanimously

1441 was not a universally accepted to allow for the invasion. Very few countries thought it was sufficient. Norway was under a lot of pressure by GWB and friends to participate. Our government said it would if there was a resolution by the UN to that effect. There was none.

Have you forgotten the freedom fries mess? That was because France managed to convince the UNSC not to go ahead with a resolution allowing for an invasion.

If you believe all the countries that were opposed to the invasion did it because of their own interests you are mistaken and not thinking clearly.

[afreu]

I think the articla is s***. Just my opinion and I don't care to elaborate. Thank you for reading this post.

[Estopped]

Like I said, there is a direct link between the geo-political issues and state instability. In this case, there is a very close mesh set of issues that involve Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I'm sorry but the article doesn't get at that at all. Stop giving Hitchens more credit than he deserves. Maybe you'd like to elaborate on these close mesh set of issue's that bonds Iran and Pakistan. Or maybe you can enlighten us how Iraq and Afghanistan are similar.

You are simply confused as to my point. My point about hitchens is that he just lumps together everything and then claims to have a panacea for it all. He doesn't distinguish and just cloaks everyone under a benner of islamic extremism. His article isn't intelligent at all.


Good to know that U.S went into the past after they liberated Iraq and got the UN resolutions rewritten.

You know my position on this.



Your interpretations on state-actors and a non-state actors in that specific geo-political sphere with regard to religious and political standings and the macroeconomic developments due to actions taken after the invasion of Iraq seems to be devoid of the preexisting conditions that developed well before 1991. And I think any assumptions built on limited information would be faulty

You just haven't understood anything i've said.

[Virus]

All these big words make my head hurt.