January 10, 2008

IS THIS SOME KIND OF "BRIGHT" CODE?:

America's great game: The US and Britain claim defeating the Taliban is part of a "good war" against al-Qaeda. Yet there is evidence the 2001 invasion was planned before 9/11 (John Pilger, 10 January 2008, New Statesman)

The reason the United States gave for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 was "to destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11". The women of Rawa say this is false. In a rare statement on 4 December that went unreported in Britain, they said: "By experience, [we have found] that the US does not want to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realisation of their economic, political and strategic interests in the region."

The truth about the "good war" is to be found in compelling evidence that the 2001 invasion, widely supported in the west as a justifiable response to the 11 September attacks, was actually planned two months prior to 9/11...


Someone will have to explain this. Yes, George W. Bush was likely to regime change Afghanistan and Iraq irrespective of 9-11, because the Taliban and Ba'ath are intolerable and the people of these countries deserve the opportunity to live in capitalist protestant democracies. Why isn't that good?

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 10, 2008 8:12 AM
Comments

We also see here the typical left-wing underestimation of how hard it is for large organizations to do anything. The US Army would be grossly incompetant if it didn't have someone constantly updating plans for the invasion of Canada, never mind Afghanistan.

Posted by: Mike Earl at January 10, 2008 10:34 AM

This is the leftist fantasy de jour. It'll be forgotten in a week just like all the other stuff that exists only in the fevered minds of people who suffer from BDS.

Posted by: lebeaux at January 10, 2008 10:58 AM

I find it highly unlikely that without 9/11 Bush would have attacked either country. We had long outstanding casus belli with Iraq, but I think we would have sticked with the status quo as long as there had not been a new provocation by Saddam.

As for plans to attack, I suspect any such plans would have been normal procedure for War Plans. Having plans for war is not the same as actually intending to be at war. The whole purpose of War Plans is to be ready if you do find yourself at war unexpectedly. Considering how quickly we began operations, I'm fairly sure there was some sort of script in the background, even if a lot was also improved.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at January 10, 2008 11:04 AM

He's corrected every mistake his Dad made--Saddam was toast.

Posted by: oj at January 10, 2008 2:32 PM

I have heard of Pilger but have not read much by him. Is he always this crazy and paranoid?

Posted by: Bob at January 10, 2008 5:35 PM

Chris is right. It would be military malpractice not to have such plans.

We have always had plans for invading all kinds of places, such as Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 10, 2008 6:36 PM

Remember, McCain was advocating providing arms to the Northern Alliance during the 2000 campaign. That's probably how we would have dealt with the Taliban were it not for 9/11.

Posted by: James Haney at January 10, 2008 9:17 PM
« AXIS OF GOOD--MUSLIM DIVISION: | Main | WAIT'LL THEY GET A LOAD OF MAVERICK: »