609
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
609 points (97.4% liked)
politics
18608 readers
3423 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The only time the mutual defence treaty was triggered is because the US was attacked and all countries in NATO stepped up to the plate.
Not just stepped up to the plate, but went pretty much all-in on a COMPLETELY pointless invasion against what was almost certainly the wrong country.
That's how committed they were to NATO.
I am assuming you mean the Iraq war, but that was not a NATO operation, it just happened to have many NATO allies providing support, not all of them.
To your point, it was called the "Coalition of the willing". Article 5 was not invoked.
Article 5 was invoked in response to 9/11: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
That was Afghanistan.
Kind of, but not really. NATO did operations to ensure US's immediate security against further terrost attacks. Once the US affirmed it had it's shit together, NATO pulled out. Any countries that stuck around for the counter-attack wars (like Afghanistan and Iraq) did so under different banners. NATO does not encroach or encourage war, it exists to prevent it and will do what's necessary up to the point a nation is deemed safe again.
It circles the injured sheep and fights off the wolf. Once this is done, it doesn't then hunt down the fleeing wolf. This works very well because other animals aren't scared of NATO controlling the lands, but the wolves are also scared of trying to attack that herd.
Similarly, if everything went wrong for the US in Afghanistan, NATO wouldn't help. If the US retreated and started getting attacked in its homeland, NATO would.
At the time it was correct and very much not pointless. Where we fucked up was staying around and trying to nation build. Moment we destroyed al qaeda we should have left.
Edit: Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 not Iraq...
Al Qaeda was never in Iraq though.
Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 and where nato allies helped...
Completely different war.
Mission accomplished! (/s)
My implication is that if we really wanted to get Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda, the more sensible targets were Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Which of course we didn't go after. We had a goal of spilling some Arab blood, but wanted a target that would be a cooperative punching bag.
And even then, we still fucking failed. Al-Qaeda still exists. Or it was consumed by/transformed into/always secretly was just a branch of Daesh who are still going strong. Or maybe they weren't really a coherent organization in the first place and were always more grassroots/franchised. Not to mention the Taliban are right back in power and doing their same shit. We accomplished nothing more than running the best possible recruitment campaign for the next generation of west-hating religious extremist warriors.
I wouldn't call it completely pointless. But I also wouldn't call it a success. Taliban are in power but they don't have interest in terrorizing the west (for now at least...) which at least is some sort of win. Other organizations with aspiration to attack the west were severely degraded in the war like al qaeda.
When did we destroy al qaeda?
There is a very long and informative wiki page about that and the Afghanistan war invite you to read. They were obliterated very early in the war.
As for a less smart ass response. They won't ever be "truly" gone. Same as ISIS. But we effectively beheaded the organization and prevented it from mounting any sort of serious attacks on the US and allies for the foreseeable future.
Modern day al qaeda is completely different from the organization of 2001 and a shell of its former self.