On a gaudy neon street? Not that I care at all.

This argument doesn’t hold water because the Saudi government, unlike the Taliban were not sheltering the organization that coordinated the attacks.

No, they just helped train them?!

Hope springs eternal

This argument doesn’t hold water because the Saudi government, unlike the Taliban were not sheltering the organization that coordinated the attacks. Remember, we asked the Taliban to withdraw their support for AQ before we went there. They said “No”. Taliban and AQ knew exactly what they were doing (as evidenced by AQ helping Taliban out by assinating Ahmed Shah Massoud days before 9-11). The foot soliders of AQ were Arab recruits, but the ‘headquarters’ were in Afghanistan with their government’s [Afghan] active support.

Believe me, I know. I was part of the tiny, tiny minority that opposed it– we’d wear buttons saying ‘don’t turn tragedy into war’ and people would threaten us physically on the streets. It was scary. But I still believe that it was the right thing to do. When I referred to “what could have been a vocal anti-war minority,” my intent was to underscore the fact that there was almost no anti-war movement whatsoever, partially because people on the radical left who might otherwise have questioned the war bought into the ‘but we’re liberating women’ justification.

Everything isn’t a grand scheme, rather in this case, other opportunities open up but the simplest answer holds true in my analysis; we went there for payback.

Then shouldn’t we have gone to Saudi Arabia?

Yes, it does become hard for majority of law abiding peaceful muslims to put for their views, due to the sensationalist nature of Salafist Jihadis (and terrorist groups in general). Not only do terrorist acts that catch attention show ‘strength’, but they also serve to drown out any voice of reason that the moderate/liberal community may have. The way Jihadis conduct their information/psychological warfare is their biggest strength (and acts like a force multiplier, IMHO).

As I mentioned, I think Bush’s real aims had nothing to do with women and everything to do with asserting American dominance

Sarah: There was very little resistance for the US to go into Afghanistan – it wasn’t just Bush’s decision made against very vocal opposition like the Iraq war, but a far more united one with the majority of government in agreement. Everything isn’t a grand scheme, rather in this case, other opportunities open up but the simplest answer holds true in my analysis; we went there for payback.

Right, exactly. It was a marketing effort, a way to sell a war to a group that otherwise would oppose it, and quiet what could have been a vocal anti-war minority. As I mentioned, I think Bush’s real aims had nothing to do with women and everything to do with asserting American dominance, but the ‘liberating women’ argument was pushed down our throats at every turn. (I was also attending a women’s college at the time, so you can imagine how often I heard it.) We used to hear the ‘humanitarian’ justifications for war a lot more often, although with Iraq they’re not even bothering anymore.

Thanks for the clarification, what you were saying now makes sense to me. If we fought wars for women’s freedom specifically, we’d be lining up quite a bucket load of nations.

Ok, I was clearly way too fast & loose with my words. First, let me clarify what I mean by “political left.” I don’t mean Dems or whatnot, I mean voraciously anti-war advocates in the Bay Area. I’m definitely not talking mainstream in any way, shape, or form. Also, with respect to calling it a “lie,” I guess I meant that it was ridiculous to sell invading Afghanistan as “women’s lib” when really that wasn’t a primary objective. In the messaging put out by groups like Feminist Majority (FMLA), they completely downplayed/ignored the violence women face before/during/after war, and they tried to pitch this as a “war for women’s freedom” instead of a war in which women may or may not benefit. It was, in my opinion, an unqualified and irrelevant argument for war.

A lie? I don’t think so, because getting girls in schools as on the agenda. Maybe an overestimation of the abilities ‘freedom’ would have or getting caught up in the hype themselves as politicians like to do. Here is another point – if you need to sell ‘women will be free’ to group in order to invade (especially when the political capital already exists for one to attack the Taliban/AQ), it’s hard to take that group seriously from a mainstream perspective. Said group would have pulled its support back because liberalizing womens rights wasn’t on the table?

Tony Blair and the Brits were genuinely scared we’d nuke Afghanistan, which we didn’t. I think our path to Afghanistan was pretty clear domestically and internationally, and maybe to score some brownie points all the other stuff was added on. They really didn’t need to, but they did. It’s like a car salesman promising extras when the party has already agreed in principle to purchase the car. When the salesman didn’t deliver, the buyer becomes upset for not getting the extras, without evaluating the fact that they were already sold on buying the car without it in the first place.

Rajesh:

Interesting observation GujuDude, but has has the better marketing strategy and dominate the news. It is not mainstream Muslims,the silent majority.

I’m not clear in exactly what you’re asking, my bad. Can you rephrase it?