Many Muslims will declare me a traitor for supporting such a war. How could I support infidels in waging a war against another Muslim nation? You see, the thing is that I don’t view such issues as an “us against them” sort of situation and I don’t necessarily view it as “oh the evil dirty kuffar are invading our Muslim lands”. Butcher and “pious”, “God-fearing” Muslim Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, BAD. “Dirty filthy” American infidels liberating Kuwait, GOOD! Just ask the Kuwaitis 
Before I begin I must state something. The fact that innocent Afghani civilians were hurt or killed accidentally by American bombs or NATO is a very regrettable and painful one. I hate it and by supporting this war, I’m in no way trying to lessen those peoples’ deaths or legitimize them. I believe in diplomacy and solving conflicts in the least violent possible means. War for me is the last option but it’s still an option. Accidents and innocent deaths are unfortunately unavoidable in war and I wish that wasn’t the case.
The case of the Afghanistan war is very different from that of Iraq. First of all the link between al-Qaeda and the Taliban was a very clear “in your face” one. I don’t believe it’s up for debate unless you’re one of those conspiracy theory nut heads thinking 9/11 was carried out by the American government or Israelis and that al-Qaeda is a myth which doesn’t exist. If you are, then I guess the US Embassy bombings in east Africa were also carried out by the US government too huh? On the other hand, WMDs weren’t found in Iraq and the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda is rather unclear. The issue is very debatable. Again, this isn’t the case with Afghanistan.
Secondly, the management of the war in Afghanistan has been much better than the huge mess that is now Iraq. Yes, the Taliban are making a come back. Yes they’re giving NATO and US troops a headache but overall I believe the war brought about a positive result as I expected it to. Aid for construction and development isn’t enough at the moment but I’m confident that in due time things will improve. The filthy Taliban are gone (even though not yet fully). Kabul is moving out of the Stone Age the Taliban put it in. Music can be heard playing in many places. Women aren’t forced into wearing burkas anymore, they don’t get stoned for being victims of rape (ah the irony) and they’re finally able to get an education just like men. Al-Qaeda training camps have been destroyed and the terrorist organization doesn’t have a strong hold like it used to before.
Did the war wipe out the terrorist threat? No of course not, but it improved the life of Afghanis and dealt a huge blow to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I think that is tax money put into good use. Plus, it’s not like you infidels are out there to suck our oil or steal our natural resources right?
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
“The case of the Afghanistan war is very different from that of Iraq. First of all the link between al-Qaeda and the Taliban was a very clear “in your face” one. ”
If attacking Afghanistan is OK because of the Taliban’s links to attacks on the US, why are Saddam’s links to his army attacking American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones not “very clear” and “in your face”? Wouldn’t they also be acts of war that the US and Britain are allowed to defend against?
And apart from that, were the Taliban worse than Saddam? Their atrocities are well-documented, but so are Saddam’s. But did the Taliban not murder fewer people?
“Secondly, the management of the war in Afghanistan has been much better than the huge mess that is now Iraq. Yes, the Taliban are making a come back. Yes they’re giving NATO and US troops a headache but overall I believe the war brought about a positive result as I expected it to.”
Iraq has had free elections, twice. It has a government, the government has some power. Iraqi Kurdistan is functioning very well. There is no part of Afghanistan that works that well. And the Afghani government doesn’t seem to have any power at all.
On what observations do you base the statement that there is a “huge mess” in Iraq but better management in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is still divided into warlord zones. The central government has power, maybe, over one city. Iraq’s government has much more influence.
No, I think you fell for the media paradox. There are more reports about Iraq, so it seems like there are more facts. But the truth is that either situation could be focused on and be presented as utterly terrible with no hope of rescue.
Andrew I must admit that you broke down my argument and presented your points very well.
“If attacking Afghanistan is OK because of the Taliban’s links to attacks on the US, why are Saddam’s links to his army attacking American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones not “very clear” and “in your face”?”
Good point. I didn’t think about that one. Still though my support is mainly for Afghanistan. An invading country has the duty to keep stability and enforce the law. So far, America has been doing a bad job in Iraq or at least a job worse than in Afghanistan. You can’t just simply invade another country without even having a proper war plan. Look at Bush. He said it himself. First, a few months after Saddam gets brought down he announces “victory” and now just a few days ago he admits he’s been frustrated with the war in Iraq. He doesn’t look so stressed about Afghanistan does he?
“Iraq has had free elections, twice. It has a government, the government has some power. Iraqi Kurdistan is functioning very well. There is no part of Afghanistan that works that well.”
I’m not going to disagree about Kurdistan but so what? Elections or no elections there’s been violence day and night throughout most of the rest of the country. Innocent people get killed by death squads on daily basis. The situation is ugly and the Iraqi insurgency has been very ruthless in their campaigns of terror. In Afghanistan the Taliban are mainly in the south and the fighting has been mainly between them and coalition troops. Innocent deaths aren’t as high as in Iraq (at least from the reports I’ve been reading). From that I conclude that the security in Afghanistan is better than it is in much of Iraq. Keep in mind that Iraq’s population is about 26 million while Afghanistan’s is about 30 million. Afghanistan is more populated than Iraq. When in a country of 26 million you’ve got that many deaths occuring daily compared to the lesser number of deaths in a country of 30 million, how else do you conclude which country has better security?
“On what observations do you base the statement that there is a “huge mess” in Iraq but better management in Afghanistan?”
Again, same as above. On the number of daily innocent civilian deaths. Yes, Afghanistan does still have war lords roaming around but the damage they’ve been causing isn’t much compared to Iraq’s insurgency. Another thing is that in Afghanistan there aren’t hightened sectarian tensions and violence like how there is in Iraq right now with the whole horrific Sunni-Shia violence going on..
“No, I think you fell for the media paradox.”
Maybe. Maybe not. After all, how I view and perceive issues depends on how much and what kind of reports I’m exposed to. Am I not right about the situation in Afghanistan being better than Iraq? You tell me. Maybe we’re both watching and reading different news. I don’t care much about which country is more democratic than the other. That doesn’t get included in my “mess equation”. Democracy is useless if people are going to live in constant fear surrounded by a lot of deaths. I know ITM is very pro-US and there’s nothing wrong with that but go around reading the rest of the Iraqi blogosphere. The majority have very non-favorable opinions of America right now and are living in fear.
“Am I not right about the situation in Afghanistan being better than Iraq? You tell me.”
I don’t know.
But checking with the CIA world fact book regarding Afghanistan and Iraq
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
gives me the following numbers:
20.34 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
5.37 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
So unless your news sources made it perfectly clear that the death rate in Afghanistan is four times the death rate in Iraq (and that obviously includes all reasons, including natural deaths, disease, terrorism, accidents etc.), I think you might have a case of media paradox.
I don’t know how to do all the necessary calculations or what exactly the “death rate” is, but Iraq seems to be about twice as bad as Saudi Arabia, while Afghanistan is more than twice as bad as Pakistan (8.23 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)).
Iran’s death rate is close to Iraq’s. Incidentally, Ireland’s death rate is close to Pakistan’s. I guess it has a lot to do with the age of the population (Ireland is 34, Afghanistan is 18, Iraq is 19).
Perhaps these numbers mean that Iraqis and Afghanis die younger than the Irish. But it seems to me that Iraqis have, while sharing the Afghanis’ age, a much higher chance to survive.
I blame the weather and perhaps a functioning health care system set up by the occupiers?
But to be honest, I have not heard any reports about the total number of victims of the Afghani civil war plus coalition involvement.
It’s just not being reported, for some reason.
I think the deth rate comparison will lead us nowhere. We don’t have (at least I could not fint them on the factbook) the rates before the invasions. Second, Iraq is a far more developed country and was it before the invasion, means it has far more medical facilities, higher hygiene standards an so on (compare the infant mortality rate in both countries: 160.23 in Afghanistan to 48.64 in Iraq). Also, we don’t have the violent death rates…
“Second, Iraq is a far more developed country and was it before the invasion, means it has far more medical facilities, higher hygiene standards an so on”
Exactly. Again though, maybe it’s just the media paradox.
Hi Drima, good post!
When in a country of 26 million you’ve got that many deaths occuring daily compared to the lesser number of deaths in a country of 30 million, how else do you conclude which country has better security?
And there are much fewer troops in Afghanistan to provide that security, too.
I think it’s obvious. There is much more support amongst the Iraqi people for the ongoing violence, than in Afghanistan.
It’s just that simple. People are tired of war and death and suffering in Afghanistan. After all, that’s all the had from the time the Soviets invaded in the late 1970s until the Taliban fell. 25 years of pain.
The violence in Iraq will taper off when Iraqis decide they are tired of killing each other.
“And there are much fewer troops in Afghanistan to provide that security, too.”
How many troops are in Afghanistan?
“I think it’s obvious. There is much more support amongst the Iraqi people for the ongoing violence, than in Afghanistan.”
I don’t know. Afghanistan has a warlord culture. Iraq does not, as such.
“It’s just that simple. People are tired of war and death and suffering in Afghanistan. After all, that’s all the had from the time the Soviets invaded in the late 1970s until the Taliban fell. 25 years of pain.”
The Iraqis had the same 25 years of pain. 8 years war against Iran, one year against Kuwait, chemical attacks against Kurds, slaughtering Shi’ites, Saddam re-routing supplies under the sanctions, all that adds up to almost exactly 25 years of pain.
“The violence in Iraq will taper off when Iraqis decide they are tired of killing each other.”
The Iraqis are tired. They have always been tired. It’s their violent leaders who want to inflict pain. And the world makes them think that they can win, what with everybody decrying the American presence in the country.
The terrorists can only win, in Iraq or Afghanistan, if the Americans and British give up. And in Iraq they (think they) are much closer to it, thanks to their western supporters.
Andrew, I’m getting the feeling you’re denying the fact that Iraq is a mess compared to Afghanistan because you’re a passionate supporter of the democratic process in Iraq. Well look, I too am all for true democracy in Iraq but that’s beside the main point here. Iraq is a mess compared to Afghanistan. I don’t understand how you don’t see that. I’m just curious to know what kind of “measures” or methods you employ when comparing Iraq to Afghanistan. Let’s not talk about deaths caused by disease, poverty etc. but deaths caused because of violence. Isn’t Iraq clearly in a worse situation even though as Craig indicated the US troops deployed there are more?
Hi Andrew,
How many troops are in Afghanistan?
Nato fails on Afghan troops plea
Roughly 30,000. Some 15,000 of which are US troops. The US has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, by way of comparison.
I don’t know. Afghanistan has a warlord culture. Iraq does not, as such.
Maybe not, but Iraq has a tribal culture which can be just as bad. Especially when you throw sectarian issues into the mix.
I don’t disagree with what you say, but I don’t really think Iraq’s history in the last 25 years can be compared to Afghanistan’s.
Drima, I am not denying that Iraq is a mess. In fact I think it is. I am denying that I know whether it is a worse mess than Afghanistan.
As I said before, I am just not getting much news from Afghanistan. But I have seen so many positive things in Iraq (often via blogs, as the media don’t report successes), I cannot say how bad it is.
I am thinking that if Iraq is a worse mess than Afghanistan, then giving the terrorists hope that they can win is one of the reasons.
What exactly is being done differently in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What are the mistakes that were made in Iraq and how were they not made in Afghanistan?
Are the terrorists impressed by the differences?
Can we win Iraq if we handle it more like Afghanistan? Would we lose Afghanistan if we handled it more like Iraq?
If there were fewer troops in Iraq, like in Afghanistan, would the situation improve? If there were more troops in Afghanistan, like in Iraq, would the situation get worse?
Are the terrorists impressed by the fact that the UN was behind Afghanistan but not behind Iraq?
Or is Afghanistan perhaps a less valuable price for the terrorists?
Andrew -
In Iraq, most of the fighting is urban. Urban battles are a pain in the ass. You can’t just bomb the whole area out and then move your troops to look for charred bones in the glass. And there’s the whole media thing - in Iraq they are preventing the military from doing their duty, with lies and bullshit and libel.
In Afghanistan, it’s mountains and small villages. You can bomb these, easy, no problem. Nobody is even going to know if a tiny valley high in the mountains suddenly gets evaporated. And since they don’t have good hotels, the media is not present, and therefore cannot hinder the military with their pro-terrorist whining.
Oh, and the actual war in Iraq was won a long, long time ago. What we have there now is post-war rebuilding and policing. I have no idea why USA Government won’t just accept it and act accordingly.
Ask a Hazara if the war was justified and they will tell you yes.
They suffered A LOT under the Taliban, perhaps even worse than Lebanese Shi’as did under the invasion of Lebanon over the summer.
Did you see the amount of Muslims fighting on behalf of the Hazaras against the Taliban?
I really wished Iran would’ve invaded Afghanistan in ‘98 as they almost did back then when 13 Iranian diplomats were murdered by the Taliban in Mazar-i-sharif.
“Did you see the amount of Muslims fighting on behalf of the Hazaras against the Taliban?”
BTW, that remark was tongue-in-cheek. Many Taliban supporters believed that Hazaras deserved to be slaughtered because they are “kaafirs”. How disgusting.
Leave a Comment