Anti Western folks literally believe that Afghanistan was more illegal than Iraq. You aren’t going to convince them otherwise. It’s very similar logic and evidence that the folks that claim we should’ve invaded Saudi Arabia instead. It largely discounts a lot of the western narrative as false simply because of who it came from.
I’m not anti Western, but I don’t think the War in Afganistan was justified. Also think the war in Iraq could’ve been justified without requiring the lies. Ironically the lies made it difficult to defend the Iraq war… toppling Saddam in and of itself could be argued was moral and overdue.
Hindsight, the war in Afganistan had technically fulfilled NATOs strategic aim as there hasn’t been an attack on Nato from within Afganistan. However there have been lots of terrorist attacks since, so to what extent it actually solved the problem as opposed to just relocating it is debatable.
This is a complicated and often emotive issue. People are anti wars for all kind of reasons and it seems ridiculously ethnocentric and reductive to strawman anyone who disagrees with you into a “They hate the West (read USA)” *narrative.
It’s a slipplery slope, and how you get the misappropriation the word patriot when what is really meant is warmonger.
Your assumptions are largely correct and I largely agree on all your points, having been in a position to actually implement some of this foreign policy well after they were initiated. When I say West, I mean largely the alliance system including NATO and five eyes, not cultural.
The people I’ve met that claim Afghanistan was illegal all have held the view that NATO is the single greatest cause of conflict in the modern world and should be disbanded. I disagree with this view strongly and I believe it comes from the view that NATO largely preserves the liberal order instead of enabling what they see as a peaceful anarchist revolution. It takes a certain worldview to get to that point.
Anti Western folks literally believe that Afghanistan was more illegal than Iraq. You aren’t going to convince them otherwise. It’s very similar logic and evidence that the folks that claim we should’ve invaded Saudi Arabia instead. It largely discounts a lot of the western narrative as false simply because of who it came from.
I’m not anti Western, but I don’t think the War in Afganistan was justified. Also think the war in Iraq could’ve been justified without requiring the lies. Ironically the lies made it difficult to defend the Iraq war… toppling Saddam in and of itself could be argued was moral and overdue.
Hindsight, the war in Afganistan had technically fulfilled NATOs strategic aim as there hasn’t been an attack on Nato from within Afganistan. However there have been lots of terrorist attacks since, so to what extent it actually solved the problem as opposed to just relocating it is debatable.
This is a complicated and often emotive issue. People are anti wars for all kind of reasons and it seems ridiculously ethnocentric and reductive to strawman anyone who disagrees with you into a “They hate the West (read USA)” *narrative.
It’s a slipplery slope, and how you get the misappropriation the word patriot when what is really meant is warmonger.
*assumption on my part, that you are in the west.
Your assumptions are largely correct and I largely agree on all your points, having been in a position to actually implement some of this foreign policy well after they were initiated. When I say West, I mean largely the alliance system including NATO and five eyes, not cultural.
The people I’ve met that claim Afghanistan was illegal all have held the view that NATO is the single greatest cause of conflict in the modern world and should be disbanded. I disagree with this view strongly and I believe it comes from the view that NATO largely preserves the liberal order instead of enabling what they see as a peaceful anarchist revolution. It takes a certain worldview to get to that point.