In the end, let's assume that the 9/11 story is straight and upstanding against all scrutiny, except let's pin it on a group of religious fanatics in Texas or Britain or Austrailia. Now, lets imagine that a hyper power demands that you hand over your own people without any sort of evidence and then invades when you balk. Maybe it's still justifiable at this point. Maybe. In 2006, a poll was conducted and the average Afghan tribesman knew nothing about 9/11.
Let's forget about imagination and stick to facts, not conspiracy theory. A group of religious fanatics based in the Middle East hijacked four airliners. They flew two into the World Trade Centre, one into the Pentagon and were probably trying to put the last one into the White House. This group of fanatics, led by Bin Laden, claims responsibility for the attacks and gives his reasons. This caused the death of nearly 3000 innocent people. If a foreign power did this it would most likely have led to an immediate declaration of war and massive retaliation. Whether the average Afghani tribesman knew or not is irrelevant. (The fact is, the average Afghani tribesman and his family was under constant threat from the Taliban anyway.) However, the Taliban government did know and offered sanctuary to Bin Laden and his terrorists. They allowed terrorists from around the world access to his traing camps. They had the same blood on their hands.
Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda, and in 2004, the group's leader, Osama bin Laden, who had initially denied involvement, claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks.
Now, ten years later, the war has expanded, we've got double tap drone strikes, night raids, and DU sprayed everywhere. The war has expanded to not just the particular group of religious fanatics, in your home land. People you know are getting killed everyday. Your children can't go to school because it'll be bombed. You can't walk around in a group larger than three or you'll be bombed. You can't open your mouth and complain or some neighbor might take reward money and claim you've been working with the "enemy" bringing a night raid to your household where who knows is going to get shot, maybe your daughter.
The means of waging this war is not the point. Much of what you say is true, but war is war and how it is conducted in this area is US policy, not British. However it is only the tribesman's daughters that can't go to school. The Taliban has tis thing about women that gives them no rights or freedoms. The son's are perfectly free to go to school and, unless the Taliban is using the school as a bomb making factory, the chances of a school being attacked is quite low. You can walk around with as many people as you like unless you are carrying weopns. Just look at any market. (I presume you are referring to the civilian murders in Iraq that I mention in a previous post.) You can't open your mouth to complain because if you criticise the Taliban you and your entire family will be killed on the spot, not just your daughter. Terrorism is on every doorstep in Afghanistan.
Now, ten years later, I agree ... we shouldn't be there. But for different reasons.
Maybe you come home from work one day and your house is destroyed and the only thing that is left of your family are bits and pieces of their clothing fluttering in the trees?
OK. **** happens! I would be distraught.
Would you pick up a weapon and repel the invaders? Would you want revenge? How do soldiers on the other side know who is an enemy and who is simply a guy who had enough and decided to sell his life to remove this threat to everyone he knows? If you would attempt to repel this threat, then the rules of engagement don't matter. You agree that it's justifiable, you agree that you would do the same. Therefore it doesn't matter why or how the insurgent died, because the resistance is justified.
Quite possibly. But if I did, I would be accepting of the fact that I could now be killed at will by the opposing force. I would have voluntarily become a combatant.
Your point about democracy is valid, maybe if we don't consider propaganda and vote rigging, but lets assume that democracy is clean and squeaky and always results in the will of the people. The soldiers on the ground, when faced with an obvious case of being thrust into an immoral situation by there governments have a choice to end the war, at least for themselves. They could quit. They could leave the field. They could refuse to engage. Vietnam probably ended because of this more than anything else. People weren't willing to fight anymore. It's the individual that could make a difference in the end.
Democracy is not always squeaky clean but it is at least an attempt to exercise fairness. It is light years ahead of the next alternative which would be a benign dictatorship. The Taliban system of government is not even on the scale!
Soldiers can't quit. They have contracted to serve their country. They can't strike and they can't decid what job they'll do or what job they won't. Within certain parameters they can't refuse to obey a lawful command, but they must not commit acts outside their rules of engagement. That is the issue in this case.
The Vietnam war didn't end as you suggest. The Vietnam war ended with the defeat of the US forces on Vietnamese soil. Nothing to do with the individual. The South Vietnamese regime was a corrupt puppet of the US administration, (which was obsessed with Communism being evil). It was a war that was promoted with lies and misinformation.
