Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 356 posts

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#271

Post by koheripbal »

youngtaff wrote: post #122
koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

Unfortunately Western Governments would rather cosy up to Saudi Arabia and such like who actually seem to have been one of the primary sponsors of 9/11

Individual Saudis (and other gulf citizens) were the primary financial backers for Al-Quaeda.

...but the largest OUTFLOW of money from Al-Quaeda, a full 2/3rds of their annual budget was to fund the Taliban government - $20 million per year.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#272

Post by calsy »

rib3ye wrote: post #234
queuebert wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial Iraq invasion was to enforce Kuwaiti sovereignty and stop Saddam's unilateral aggression which was destabilizing the region. We tried bribing him with aid, but he still invaded, so the U.S. kept true to their promise to enforce agreements. The U.S. helped a small country and protected its image. The second Iraq war may or may not have been WMD based, but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly…

I think this is a very fair answer. Additionally, the Clinton admin bombed Iraq for four days in 1998, the same year the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal broke.

You can't retroactively justify the war in hindsight on false reasoning. 'Saddam was a bad guy' is not a justification for war and occupation. If the American people were told they would need to spend 100s of billions and lose countless young lives for the sole purpose of overthrowing a dictator in a foreign country, there would have been no war.

The reasons for going to war were a lie, and claiming that the removal of Saddam was the true victory is an excuse.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#273

Post by jollybean »

sudosysgen wrote: post #242
queuebert wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial Iraq invasion was to enforce Kuwaiti sovereignty and stop Saddam's unilateral aggression which was destabilizing the region. We tried bribing him with aid, but he still invaded, so the U.S. kept true to their promise to enforce agreements. The U.S. helped a small country and protected its image. The second Iraq war may or may not have been WMD based, but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly…

This is an unfair answer. The Second Iraq War was not based on any altruistic motive. If it was, the US would say so, instead of manufacturing evidence for WMDs. We can safely conclude that the actual reasons for the invasions are something that the US government wanted to hide. Beyond that, the war in Iraq killed more people than Saddam Hussein's genocide, so that justification simply doesn't fly. It's complete bogu…

The people behind Iraq invasion were all part of 'Project for a New American Century' which promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East, i.e. a stabilizing occupying force, probably the overthrow of Iraq and Syria.

They envisioned Iraq being a little more like Gulf States i.e. more stable, allies, and a buffer between Israel/Iran/Saudi Arabia.

And some nice construction contracts for Bechtel.

And a geostrategic signal of power.

The WMD thing was a populist narrative justification, the real motivation is literally published for all to see, it's just not what the media war was fought over.

Nobody ever fought a war for purely altruistic motives, it's unlikely the Americans were to have joined WW2 unless they were at risk themselves, but that doesn't mean there can't be motives and actions that are better than others.

Weirdly, the justification for Iraq I think would have been entirely function of historical revisionism given the success or failure. If Iraq was more stable and prosperous then 'it was the right thing to do', if the invasion was a failure, then it 'was a mistake' and that's it. Iraq has $5K/USD per capita GDP now, it has a government, elections, there's progress. Iran has a lot of control and of course Kurds are doing their own thing, but there is baseline order. 'Was It Worth It?' is another question, maybe in 50 years we can understand definitively what the real cost of finally getting rid of a Saddam-like institution was.

[1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_Am...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#274

Post by nicoffeine »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #262
afavour wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's no need to price the thing out because Iraq has more than enough oil to pay for any and all reconstruction itself. Of course that's going to be a factor in any invasion decision. In any case, further quote from the second one: > To this end, as Whitehall docum…

Interesting. So just oil in a general sense but also Iraq as a destabilizing entity in the area where oil is a primary natural resource. We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil. I can buy that. This also needs some context though. Meeting minutes can be seen as brainstorming ideas. Having oil is huge though- having a good natural resource cash c…

> We have to be careful not to be confused with the common conspiracy theory that the US wanted to steal Iraqi oil

Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized, and most of the profits went to Iraq's government, with Chinese and Russian companies taking less than 10%. After the invasion, the US pushed for a law that would allow no-bid contracts to western oil companies[1]. It never passed because that would have been the end of Maliki's government.

So, to be fair, we wanted to steal the profits from Iraqi oil production, and secure access to the 3rd largest reserves on earth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#275

Post by calsy »

queuebert wrote: post #241
oaiey wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.

The interest in regional stability is probably rooted in oil. The U.S. hasn't taken any captured oil fields and sold the oil for themselves, as far as I know, so I think they just want the region to be a stable, predicable marketplace for dead dinosaurs.

And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#276

Post by hamsterOnWheel »

The leaders who sell us and the world on these terrible interventions need to have a personal stake in their outcomes. If they want to nation-build, they should have to move themselves and their families to the new nation. If they want to topple a government, they should have to live in the capital afterwards. No more ruining the world and walking away rich afterwards.

The same goes for our business leaders, by the way. Personal results should align with the business and social results. There shouldn't be wealthy Purdue pharam execs or McKinsey consultants after oxycontin wrecked the health of Americans.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#277

Post by calsy »

jollybean wrote: post #273
sudosysgen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unfair answer. The Second Iraq War was not based on any altruistic motive. If it was, the US would say so, instead of manufacturing evidence for WMDs. We can safely conclude that the actual reasons for the invasions are something that the US government wanted to hide. Beyond that, the war in Iraq killed more people than Saddam Hussein's genocide, so that justification simply doesn't fly. It's complete bogu…

The people behind Iraq invasion were all part of 'Project for a New American Century' which promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East, i.e. a stabilizing occupying force, probably the overthrow of Iraq and Syria. They envisioned Iraq being a little more like Gulf States i.e. more stable, allies, and a buffer between Israel/Iran/Saudi Arabia. And some nice construction contracts for Bechtel. And a geostrategic signa…

Sick of hearing these nonsense hidden reasons that are completely without merit. The reasons we went to war were very clear, 'Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and was a threat to world.'. They were wrong, they simply made a colossal mistake.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#278

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

blunte wrote: post #255
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make no excuses. Those who commit war crimes should be held to account- and they almost always are. This thread seems to want senior US leadership held to account for war crimes when they never ordered anything illegal. War crimes are inevitable- war is waged by humans and humans make mistakes or do bad things to one another. Humans are not perfect. It's about what you do about them when you discover them. We have…

> they never ordered anything illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos You can't have it both ways. You are either responsible for the management and oversight of your organization (corporation, country, etc.), and thus accountable, or you are negligent. So criminal intent, or criminal negligence.

Ok

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#279

Post by rayiner »

mschuster91 wrote: post #213
rayiner wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re completely overlooking how unprepared Afghans are for secular democracy. Germany and Japan had well developed states before World War II. Afghanistan had never been more than a pastoral tribal society. They’re hundreds of years of development away from the democracy we tried to impose on them. See: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-afghanistan-occupation...

> You’re completely overlooking how unprepared Afghans are for secular democracy. Provide people with tangible benefits they gain from democracy and then it will come as naturally as they flock to the Taliban simply because they promise to get rid of the Western countries. The West didn't do anything to actually promote democracy and provide a perspective for the people, and then we all wondered why the Taliban were…

That’s not how it works. Democracy isn’t something you can gift like Prometheus giving humans fire. It’s something that must rest on a society’s cultural foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Freedom

Britain dropped some criminals in Australia and they created a prosperous democracy. Because the people had a millennium of cultural development under its belt to support democracy. Meanwhile democracy has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan despite massive US support.

In my home country of Bangladesh, we’ve had civilization for over a thousand years. The British spent 200 years in the country building institutions and culture. We have a lovely constitution. And even then we can’t maintain democracy. We’re basically back to a one party state now. The Afghans have never even had a real national government of their own. Their society is at a feudal stage of development. It’s like trying to bring democracy to England circa 600 AD.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#280

Post by rrss »

mschuster91 wrote: post #158
koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. Punishing the sponsors of the 9/11 attacks, not entrenching an ideological split. That's bollocks. I'm German, had the Allied Powers followed the Morgenthau plan Germany would be essentially an Afghanistan today - an agro state and nothing more. But you all followed through w…

The U.S. did spend sort of a lot of money in attempts to develop infrastructure and industry in Afghanistan. But it mostly achieved nothing because of the widespread corruption (both of Americans and afghans) and lack of an overall plan that made any sense (as you noted).

Here’s a report on what $500 million to develop mining achieved: https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/audits/SIGAR-16-11-AR.pdf

There are probably something like hundreds of these reports, all with similar conclusions - spent a ton of money, didn’t really achieve anything meaningful, made some crooks richer, and the taliban either a profits from what little was achieved (for “protection services” and such) or just blows it up.

We can dream that this could have been better, but I’m unconvinced that the US in the 21st century is capable of achieving any different outcome.

Post reply on HN