Why Do We Repeat The Mistakes Of The Past

[Moonlight Graham]

The US left Afghanistan alone and it was used as a base for the 9/11 attacks. Whether we like it or not these conflicts affect us and unless you also advocating that we close our doors to refugees we need to find a way to help end these conflicts. The only question is how can we use our knowledge of past failures to do in a way that makes things better.

But why did al-Qaeda attack the US on 9/11?

[dre]

Ignoring it will mean it just comes to us.

The exact opposite is true.

The question is why hasn't it worked recently?

The reasons are always different. In Iraq the problem is sectarian conflict. If it was only Shia things would have gone quite well, and you would have had stability and calm by about 2006. In Afghanistan the challenge is different. No revenue stream exists to fund a central government capable of asserting itself in all of Afghanistand remote region, so militants unfriendly to the government always have santuary and its impossible to wipe them out.

And common to both places, is that unfortunately the kind of extreme version of Islam thats espoused by groups like ISIL and the Taliban has a certain ammount of popularity especially amongh the poorest people, and especially people that live outside major population centers.

In any case theres no mission for us over there. Our interference, and misguided attempts to "fix" things jeopardizes our own national interests, and our own security.

[TimG]

But why did al-Qaeda attack the US on 9/11?

al-Queda needed a bad guy. The US is was the most convenient target. Prior to the shale gas explosion the US could not simply ignore the region because of the need for oil. This required some level of involvement. No matter what the US did or how it acted some people would be pissed off. Combine that with a suicide cult and a desire for media attention an attack was inevitable.

[dre]

al-Queda needed a bad guy. The US is was the most convenient target.

What a silly oversimplification. Osama used to be against attacks on the west. The turning point was when the Saudis allowed the US to station troops and build military bases in Saudi Arabia, but BinLaden saw santions in Iraq, support for Indian policy in Kashmir, and support for the Lebanese and Israeli governments all as attacks on muslims.

The biggest factor though was the presence of US troops in the kingdom. This lead to the Khobar Towers attack and eventually to BinLadens exile from Saudi Arabia. The US embassy bombings took place on the anniversary of US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia... to the day (August 7th)

Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina), many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th attacks^[23] and the Khobar Towers bombing. Further, the date chosen for the 1998 United States embassy bombings (August 7) was eight years to the day that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.^[24] Bin Laden interpreted Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".^[25]

In 1996, Bin Laden issued a fatwa calling for American troops to get out of Saudi Arabia. In the 1998 fatwa, Al-Qaeda wrote: "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."^[20] In the December 1999 interview with Rahimullah Yusufzai, bin Laden said he felt that Americans were "too near to Mecca" and considered this a provocation to the entire Muslim world.^[26]

[TimG]

The biggest factor though was the presence of US troops in the kingdom.

You are not helping your case. The base is only there because the rulers of the territory permitted it to be there. They only permitted it to be there because Iraq invaded Kuwait and the the Saudi's wanted a deterrent to discourage further actions on the part of Iraq. Have you actually thought through the scenario where the world let Iraq annex Kuwait and possibly turned his attention to Saudi Arabia? Do you really believe that an oil price shock caused by open conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia would have no effect on the world?

My point is that whether we get involved or not what happens there will affect us and it is in our interest to do whatever we can to keep the region stable. More importantly, sometimes proactive actions like putting a base in Saudi Arabia are lot cheaper than sending in troops after the chaos starts.

Edited September 29, 2015 by TimG

[dre]

You are not helping your case. The base is only there because the rulers of the territory permitted it to be there. They only permitted it to be there because Iraq invaded Kuwait and the the Saudi's wanted a deterrent to discourage further actions on the part of Iraq. Have you actually thought through the scenario where the world let Iraq annex Kuwait and possibly turned his attention to Saudi Arabia? Do you really believe that an oil price shock caused by open conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia would have no effect on the world?

I never said there wasnt a good reason for Saudis to allow troops there. Thats immaterial to what I explained to you, which is simply that it was a major factor in Binladen and ex-mujahadeen fighters turning on the west.

Edited September 29, 2015 by dre

[TimG]

I never said there wasnt a good reason for Saudis to allow troops there. Thats immaterial to what I explained to you, which is simply that it was a major factor in Binladen and ex-mujahadeen fighters turning on the west.

A point which supports what I said: Bin Laden needed a bad guy. He picked on the US bases despite the fact they were there with permission and served to help protect Arab states from attacks from their neighbors. There are no rational actions the US could have done differently to avoid having Bin Laden go after them.

[dre]

A point which supports what I said: Bin Laden needed a bad guy. He picked on the US bases despite the fact they were there with permission and served to help protect Arab states from attacks from their neighbors. There are no rational actions the US could have done differently to avoid having Bin Laden go after them.

No it doesnt support what you said in any way shape or form support your silly simplistic assertion. As I said.. its immaterial whether or not US and Saudi actions were rational or not. The relevent point is that permanent US bases in Saudi Arabia angered Binladen and lead to its exile, and it also angered a lot of other people in the muslim world, and thats the biggest single reason why Binladen turned on the US.

[TimG]

its immaterial whether or not US and Saudi actions were rational or not. The relevent point is that permanent US bases in Saudi Arabia angered Binladen

Actually it matters a lot that the actions were rational responses because you are suggesting that the US should have done something differently and avoided to attacks. I also don't take the Bin Laden claims at face value. If the bases weren't there he would have invented some other excuse because uniting the people against a foreign bad guy is well established tool to influence people and gain power.

[overthere]

If you believe as I do that all men are created equal and wired basically the same,

Faulty premise. People are not created the same. The pack has aplha wolves.

[carepov]

There is really nothing new on this earth as to how man reacts under different conditions.

...

History is ripe with situations where one nation invades another with the intent to change things, perhaps to occupy, perhaps just to burn and loot. The end is always the same - the inhabitants will eventually take back control and any changes will be temporary.

What irks me the most is when one nation does exactly the same to another nation that had been unsuccessfully done in the past and yet expect different results. I believe that Afghanistan is the best example. This poor nation had been invaded and conquered many times before it declared itself a republic. Then the Soviet Union invaded. One of the most powerful militaries in the world got its butt kicked and they backed out. So the United States decided that history was faulty and that the USA will win the day!!! Well guess what, what happened to the Soviet invasion also happened to the American invasion.

...

The Americans seem very slow at learning...

Big Guy, there is a great deal of your OP that I agree with; I left the points where I disagree.

Understanding history is important and yes there are lessons missed. However IMO every war/conflict is unique and must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

You have cherry-picked examples of failed occupations but IMO these are exceptions. Nations and empires have over history grown is size and this growth has had permanent impacts on the "conquered" peoples and has shaped the world.

Afghanistan was a failure, but IMO the invasion/occupation would have been a success if it was better managed. The main issue was a lack of resources, troop levels and supports were way too low. NATO allies should have sent more and the US should have used all the troops that went to Iraq instead of starting a new front.

America is one of the most, if not the most flexible and adaptive nation/empire ever.

[dre]

Actually it matters a lot that the actions were rational responses because you are suggesting that the US should have done something differently and avoided to attacks.

No i didnt suggest that at all. Its like you dont even make an attempt to read the posts youre replying to. I simply explained the reasons why Binladen issued his Fatwa and started attacking the US after 30 years of not doing so. If you want to keep repeating your bogus and simplistic "he needed enemies dude!" soundbyte then feel free, but these things are well documented and part of the record.

[Moonlight Graham]

al-Queda needed a bad guy. The US is was the most convenient target.

dre's right, this is an oversimplification. Attacking the US wasn't about "convenience", it was war against the biggest foreign enemy of Muslims.

The base is only there because the rulers of the territory permitted it to be there. They only permitted it to be there because Iraq invaded Kuwait and the the Saudi's wanted a deterrent to discourage further actions on the part of Iraq. Have you actually thought through the scenario where the world let Iraq annex Kuwait and possibly turned his attention to Saudi Arabia? Do you really believe that an oil price shock caused by open conflict between Iraq and Saudi Arabia would have no effect on the world?

Do you really think Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Israel, and a host of others in the region would have let Saddam annex Kuwait? Now let's even say Saddam did successfully annex Kuwait and remained friendly with the US...would that have really affected global or Western oil supply in the medium or long-term? Yes, a quick victory led by the US probably would have helped oil prices in the short-term as opposed to a possibly longer war led by regional states. I think the Arab League could have contained Saddam, and the Arab League didn't want non-regional actors to involve themselves in the conflict.

My point is that whether we get involved or not what happens there will affect us and it is in our interest to do whatever we can to keep the region stable. More importantly, sometimes proactive actions like putting a base in Saudi Arabia are lot cheaper than sending in troops after the chaos starts.

I agree we need to keep the ME stable. But we aren't keeping the region more stable, it's pretty clear that much of our activity in the ME blows up in our faces, so many unintended consequences. IMO, in the long-term our intervention makes things less stable in the ME. The best thing for us is for oil to flow and to have friendly trade with everyone in the region, which means neutrality in the region. Given the trillions we've spent on intervention in the region, how many solar panels could we retrofit on houses in the West with that kind of money to get off oil a bit? How many jobs would that create, instead of creating them in the defense sector? How many Western lives saved, not to mention in the region? The status quo in the ME clearly is a disaster, and it keeps getting worse and worse. Western influence & intervention in the ME also makes Muslims more apt to radicalize...when the pendulum swings toward Western intervention, it then swings far the other way with conservative Islamist movements that react to counteract this influence. Similar to the West during the Cold War...the stronger Communism became throughout the world, the stronger the counter negative reaction to Communist there was in the West (ie: neoliberalism movements, McCarthyism etc)

[dre]

Afghanistan was a failure, but IMO the invasion/occupation would have been a success if it was better managed. The main issue was a lack of resources, troop levels and supports were way too low. NATO allies should have sent more and the US should have used all the troops that went to Iraq instead of starting a new front.

No the main issue is that Afghanistan doesnt have a revenue stream that can support a central government capable of asserting itself in every corner of the country, and the place is rife with tribalism and regionalism. The Taliban could not do it, and neither could any central government in Kabul without PERMANENT outside assistance.

The problem wasnt mismanagement it was that the entire idea was ignorant of the political dynamics there... a big huge pipe-dream thought up by people that would be hard pressed to find Afghanistan on a map of the world.

[TimG]

I agree we need to keep the ME stable. But we aren't keeping the region more stable, it's pretty clear that much of our activity in the ME blows up in our faces, so many unintended consequences.

I agree on the backfires and unintended consequences. My argument is the isolationist approach is not going to work either. The objective of stability requires that we be involved but I hope we would learn from past mistakes and be more careful about how and where we get involved.

Given the trillions we've spent on intervention in the region, how many solar panels could we retrofit on houses in the West with that kind of money to get off oil a bit? How many jobs would that create, instead of creating them in the defense sector?

Why waste time with solar panels? It would be more cost effective to dig ditches and fill them in again. I agree money could be better spent but a more effective use of money would require that we dispense with visions of democracy and support whatever thugs can keep their populations under control.

[dre]

My argument is the isolationist approach is not going to work either.

Isolationism and Military Investionalism are not polar opposites. We can stop wasting time and money on ill advised attempts to fight peoples civil wars for them, without being "isolationist".

[carepov]

No the main issue is that Afghanistan doesnt have a revenue stream that can support a central government capable of asserting itself in every corner of the country, and the place is rife with tribalism and regionalism. The Taliban could not do it, and neither could any central government in Kabul without PERMANENT outside assistance.

The problem wasnt mismanagement it was that the entire idea was ignorant of the political dynamics there... a big huge pipe-dream thought up by people that would be hard pressed to find Afghanistan on a map of the world.

Surely you would agree that with better management NATO could have at least:

1. Eliminated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan

2. Made life for the average Afghani better than what it was under the Taliban

3. Given the country a chance at "long-term success"

I agree that there are challenges to overcome and these challenges were greatly underestimated. I but disagree that they are insurmountable. Almost any nation was at one time "rife with tribalism and regionalism". Afghanistan also has massive mineral reserves with the potential for revenue stream.

[Big Guy]

Surely you would agree that with better management NATO could have at least:

1. Eliminated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan

2. Made life for the average Afghani better than what it was under the Taliban

3. Given the country a chance at "long-term success"

I agree that there are challenges to overcome and these challenges were greatly underestimated. I but disagree that they are insurmountable. Almost any nation was at one time "rife with tribalism and regionalism". Afghanistan also has massive mineral reserves with the potential for revenue stream.

Al-Qaeda is an extremist religion based movement. Movements cannot be eliminated. Taliban are Afghanistan nationalists. They did not drop in from somewhere but the core are the young religious and religiously educated Afghanistan people. How do you eliminate them? The basic human need after food and water is security. To give them security a stable social order is required. For a generally illiterate and innumerate society, sometimes that stability comes in a dictatorship or a theocracy. No one can give or provide another country with a chance at "long-term success".

[carepov]

Al-Qaeda is an extremist religion based movement. Movements cannot be eliminated. Taliban are Afghanistan nationalists. They did not drop in from somewhere but the core are the young religious and religiously educated Afghanistan people. How do you eliminate them? The basic human need after food and water is security. To give them security a stable social order is required. For a generally illiterate and innumerate society, sometimes that stability comes in a dictatorship or a theocracy. No one can give or provide another country with a chance at "long-term success".

There were a total of ~ 20,000 - 40,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan from 2002-2008

With these numbers there was some success in rooting out the Taliban. There were some early signs of progress in human development.

During this time there were over 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq. Imagine if all these resources (troops + money + international political cooperation) would have been focussed on Afghanistan.

[ReeferMadness]

There were a total of ~ 20,000 - 40,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan from 2002-2008

With these numbers there was some success in rooting out the Taliban. There were some early signs of progress in human development.

During this time there were over 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq. Imagine if all these resources (troops + money + international political cooperation) would have been focussed on Afghanistan.

ISIS would have started in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?