Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it's more easy to argue that an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been justified. (I am being a bit flippant)

Most people don't complain so much about Afghanistan, though. People can understand that war. And if you'd stuck to that one, perhaps you'd have been more successful.

Bundling Iraq in on top of that is where a lot of people start drawing their lines.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it's more easy to argue that an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been justified. (I am being a bit flippant)

Most people don't complain so much about Afghanistan, though. People can understand that war. And if you'd stuck to that one, perhaps you'd have been more successful.

Bundling Iraq in on top of that is where a lot of people start drawing their lines.

You mean easier to justify than Afghanistan? I'm glad you're being flippant about the Saudi Arabia comment, because that's ridiculous.


We could have nailed Osama Bin Laden in 2001 in Tora Bora, but they fethed that up. I sometimes wonder if we'd got him in 2001 if the Iraq invasion would have even happened.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened

We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.

Yeah but if Bin Laden hadn't found shelter in Afghanistan, he would have found it elsewhere I think. I mean, look at how long he managed to hide out on Pakistan.

And if we hadn't bailed on the Iraqis that resisted against Saddam in 1991 that might have helped too.


Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.

 Hordini wrote:
Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.

Weird how that works. If things had gone differently things would have been different.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.

Weird how that works. If things had gone differently things would have been different.

I know, right? It's so sad to think about.

I wonder though those individuals who were affected by a chemical warhead have it documented. Including the Gag Order, and/or documentation to actually back up the chem claims for the servicemembers so they can get treated ASAP

 Hordini wrote:
And if we hadn't bailed on the Iraqis that resisted against Saddam in 1991 that might have helped too.


Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.

I'm too pessimistic to believe this. The problems that came to pass may not have, but other problems would probably have arisen in their stead. The world is a messed up place and always will be.

Bush Sr. did not want to create a power vacuum by removing Saddam from power in the region.

 Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of valid arguments for why the invasion of Iraq was a bad decision, and even more that it was poorly handled, but I think it's much tougher to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified.

I was responding to the idea of invading Afghanistan pre-9/11.

 Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of valid arguments for why the invasion of Iraq was a bad decision, and even more that it was poorly handled, but I think it's much tougher to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified.

I was responding to the idea of invading Afghanistan pre-9/11.

Gotcha. I would tend to agree in that case.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

Afghanistan was an even more toothless country, yet it produced the deadliest attack on the continental United States in the last century.

So, your argument is that any given state should go to war with any other given state that might possibly pose a threat to them?

That way lies perpetual warfare, just ask Europe.

 Jihadin wrote:
Bush Sr. did not want to create a power vacuum by removing Saddam from power in the region.

And that is arguably one of the better reasons for not invading.

No, not saying that. But there are times when it is the best thing to do.

 d-usa wrote:


I do think that the Bush Administration was wrong about what they thought they knew about what was going on in Iraq, .

Isn't that because they were receiving information from a source in Iraq previously discounted by German intelligence as somewhat of a "crank" that was regarded as unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Bush Sr. did not want to create a power vacuum by removing Saddam from power in the region.

And that is arguably one of the better reasons for not invading.

Agreed, power vaccums that are half filled by governments that most likely looked on as collaborators by the people don't seem to help matters. Funny that the first iraqi president (after the war) was of the same tribe that the brits helped put into power a long time ago.

Chiver's article in the NYT isn't unearthing anything anyone didn't already know in terms of the metagame going on with OIF. The Gov't disclosed finding WMDs in 2006, and Iraq itself turned over more munitions in 2009. I even remember reading about the latter in the news. They all were legacy munitions, and because of that no one gave two gaks. Mostly because it was readily apparent Saddam hadn't pursued WMD programs since his beat down in '91, which is essentially the big evil story that was sold to the world before the invasion. (Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, for instance.)

But that article isn't really about the politics about it, it's about how the pentagon dealt with the situation, along with the actions of yesman officers and the very real effect it had on the guys on the ground who dealt with them. Those guys went untreated for sometimes weeks because they classified what they were exposed to instead of someone walking those guys down to medical and saying Hey doc, these guys were exposed to mustard gas, can you treat them but not tell anyone.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened

We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.

Why do you say that? The Mujihadeen movement started with the Russians. It didn't die with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
And if we hadn't bailed on the Iraqis that resisted against Saddam in 1991 that might have helped too.


Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.

Or it would have just started what is going on now in the 90s...

if only the British had broken up the Ottoman Empire...

If only the Ottomans didn't get sick on their way to Vienna

If only I had convinced the others that the wheel was just a fad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Bush Sr. did not want to create a power vacuum by removing Saddam from power in the region.

Based on history that appeared to have been a good idea.

 Frazzled wrote:
[

Based on history that appeared to have been a good idea.

Just like Irans' revolution wasn't. and russias invasion of afganistan. and the creation of most african states along european posession lines rather than along the tribal lines inherent in those states. and .....
Is it just me or does power politics seem not to work out well too often?

 Bullockist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
[

Based on history that appeared to have been a good idea.

Just like Irans' revolution wasn't. and russias invasion of afganistan. and the creation of most african states along european posession lines rather than along the tribal lines inherent in those states. and .....
Is it just me or does power politics seem not to work out well too often?

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it

good quote dreadcaw. I think the world would be served better by instead of kids learning jingoistic crap in schools as history, we learned the effect of imperialistic policies on "client" countries

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened

We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.

Why do you say that?

Because the options were for us to fill the vacuum (and be a pal) or for another less savory group to fill the void, and we chose the latter. They were there, sure, but they didn't really hate us at that point (we were giving them support after all) and if we hadn't pulled out the moment Russia left it is very likely we would have a different relationship with the country. Afghanistan wasn't in the best shape to begin with and the war really tore it up. We helped out Europe after WWII so it isn't as if we don't know that war causes infrastructure problems and can lend a helping hand. Building schools is less sexy than smuggling in firearms but it probably would have made a bigger difference in the long run.

The key word of course is 'probably'. We can't change the past and we can't know exactly what would have happened if things had gone differently.

I wonder what % of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

 Easy E wrote:
I wonder what % of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

It was 70% in 2003, and 28% in 2013, so my guess is about 24% or so.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened

We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.

Maybe, but that might have messed up US-Soviet relations because building schools can lead to building airbases, and having US bases that close to the Russian border would make the soviets understandably nervous.

The U.S. had bigger things on its mind than the future of Afghanistan, it was just a tool in "winning" the Cold War

Know volunteer Palestinian suicide bombers family were no longer receiving 10K provided by Saddam when they attempt kill Israeli's

Edit

Grammar