The United States Needed to invade Afghanistan.

I. That is not so. Anybody who does any amount of research will understand that warlords city officials and the Taliban have been deeply engrained in Afghani society and culture the first two more so than the ladder. Also your pointing the finger in the wrong Direction. When the United States invaded we took out the Taliban Government working with multiple warlords and the Northern Alliance. 1. We are unclear as to weather it was a slight majority or a slight minority. The fact of the situation is that initially the people felt indebted to the Warlords for winning the Jihad against Russia in the 80's. The Taliban split with the traditional Mujahedeen anti-soviet Warlords , and worked for a national force to eliminate the corruption and maliciousness in the country. The Taliban then strengthened as a movement, people allied themselves behind the Taliban and worked to reach their purification goals. Their whole movement gained a lot of support. Once The Taliban established an Emirate government, they then began to turn increasingly oppressive in their interpretation of Islamic law, and their use of religious police to enforce their interpretations. Women were repressed but that just asserted male. And since males fight in the military there, that sort of repression we couldn't have taken advantage of. It's not like we were going to start an all female rebellion. On that note most of the people who were repressed by the Taliban had no real means for revolting, no weapons and no way to sustain themselves if the revolt was successful. Revolting would take them away from their farm lives , and since people there farm to feed themselves and not for profit this would mean hunger. The People who could revolt were the people with weapons which were invariably allied with someone already. So they had a stake in sticking with the Taliban as long as they were the Dominant Force in the Region. It required an invasion to dethrown the Taliban to convince the Warlords to change alliances. If The united states would not have invaded there would not have been any changing in the situation in Afghanistan. A. As stated above a grass-roots rebellion with the regular people of Afghanistan was implausible. They did not have the means or the provisions. And it wasn't a horrible repression either, many Afghans were sad at the oppression but pleased as the elimination of corruption and non-Taliban crime didn't exist, when before it was rampant. bring in my key argument. We were not going to wait around for a rapid change in events by generated by….pamphlets? Its almost an insult that the situation in Afghanistan can be reduced to a nice fix with …pamphlets. No! Septemeber eleventh 2001 that is what we're dealing with. America was brought down to its knees and it needed to take action on terrorism . The Taliban was harboring terrorist and we knew it and had hard intelligence to back it up. The Taliban wasn't even denying that they had Osama Bin laden they just refused to cough him up. The United States knew for a fact that terrorism brought down the trade centers, and the Professional terrorist organization Al-Quida controlled by Osama Bin Laden specifically planned it. We knew that. But what we did not know were any plans that were going to come there after. We only knew that our buildings were blown up it was Bin Laden's fault , there was a declared Jihad against America and we had no idea what was next. Zarul ,the gravity of the situation did not call for pamphlets , the situation called for quick action, it was war, and we needed to act fast in the face of imminent threat , and imminent hostilities. C. The complexity of the situation was this. Local leaders backed warlords. Warlords had their own forces and the majority backed the Taliban. The Taliban had their own forces and controlled a government that they established called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The warlords were not going to rebel against the dominant force that controlled 90% of that country. Just as the United States had to win some victories to convince the French to ally with us, we had to bring down the Taliban before the Warlords would ally with us. And that's what we did. We used our air superiority to attack the Taliban from the Sky. We then relied on the Northern Alliance, a group of warlords that are affiliated with the explicit purpose to fight the Taliban. The Northern Alliance use to be the Government of Aghanistan that the Taliban ousted. After they were ousted the Government split up into warlordships. Without being able to unify for any other purpose they unified militarily to oppose the Taliban. The United States DID use this force in their war to bring down the Taliban. However this was a minority force and relied on our air superiority to gain victories. After they started winning against the Taliban other war lords Left the side of the Taliban and allied behind them. D . You think our intent was to go and liberate Afghanistan. The statement of the augment was the United States needed to invade Afghanistan. This isn't Iraq , there was a clear purpose we invaded Afghanistan to protect ourselves. The mystical revolution that you advocate sounds a lot like Karl Marx's wishful optimism in the communist manifesto. E. Your alleging that order could come from disarray. let me remind you that logic is to assume that the most probable thing that could happen would most likely happen. The United States could do nothing significant if it limited itself to peaceful means or anything less than force. The people were not in the position and were not contemplating rebellion. The ones who were moved to arms joined if they could the Northern Alliance a long time ago and have been fighting the Taliban at that point for years. The people left behind were too dependant on subsistence farming, and although repressed, the balanced security let them able to live and they were not going to rebel, no matter the propaganda. G You make allusions to a central government that does not exist. The Northern Alliance was the government, and were dethrown by the Taliban when the capital fell and the alliance was pushed all the way out to the North. The Only Central Government-like contraption in Afghanistan WAS the Taliban, so your argument there is invalid. We had to take out the Taliban because it was a war ON the government. The Warlords were not going to turn away until we had started accomplishing this feate The Northern Alliance was able to regain control, and then we had them relinquish a lot of authority to a new Central government. Because the fact is all the systems of before weren't working and they weren't going to work if we tried them again. It took a new government with a new structure to work and that's what we did. H. The people who lost family recognize that the war was incurred upon the land by the Taliban and the connection with Al-Qaedi and Osama Bin Laden. . The power of the Afghani government is not mainly from the US. Afghanistan has its own national army. And unlike Iraq these guys are experienced fighters. However before us they did not have the strength to get themselves into a position of power, and even if they had done so they did not have the statesmanship to set up an enduring corruption less government. Also the Opium trade is not in the hands of the warlords its in the hands of the poor. And we look the other way because we are trying to maintain the support that we have established in Afghanistan. The Problem is people do not have any alternative's should we take away their opium trade. They will be disenfranchised and poor and that could lead to them joining an extremist group, or just spreading unhappiness. UP to this point I had been trying to counter every sentence you wrote but you are very repetitive and then forcing me to be repetitive. So I will end their for now