|
moving Afghan opposition to that section
|
Rescued 6 archive links; reformat 2 links. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#google.com/hostednews
|
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title is already sufficiently detailed; see [[WP:SDNONE]] -->
{{Multiple issues|
{{POV|date=March 2013}}
Line 5 ⟶ 6:
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
'''Opposition to the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)]]''' stems from numerous factors, including the view that the [[United States invasion of Afghanistan]] was [[#Disputed legality of the NATO invasion|illegal]]{{Broken anchor|date=2024-06-03|bot=User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration|target_link=#Disputed legality of the NATO invasion|reason= }} under international law and constituted an unjustified aggression, the view that the continued military presence constitutes a [[#Foreign military occupation|foreign military occupation]], the view that the war [[#Rejection of the terrorism argument|does little to prevent terrorism but increases its likelihood]], and views on the involvement of [[#Geo-political and corporate interests|geo-political and corporate interests]]. Also giving rise to opposition to the war are [[#Afghan civilian casualties|civilian casualties]], the [[#Financial cost of the war to taxpayers and Western economies|cost to taxpayers]], and [[#Length of the war|the length of the war]] to date.
==Disputed legality of the US invasion==
[[File:March 20, 2010 anti-war march (06).png|thumb|Anarchist protest against the war in Afghanistan on March 20, 2010]]
Opponents of the war{{who|date=May 2024}} have claimed that the attack on Afghanistan was illegal under [[international law]], constituted unjustified [[War of aggression|aggression]] and would lead to the deaths of many civilians through the bombing campaign and by preventing [[humanitarian aid]] workers from bringing food into the country. By [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1740538.stm one estimate], around 5,000 Afghan civilians had been killed within just the first three months of the U.S. invasion.<ref name="guardian_stopafghanwar">{{cite news |last=Vidal |first=John |title=Another coalition stands up to be counted |work=The Guardian |date=November 19, 2001 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk_news/story/0,,597160,00.html |access-date=November 11, 2006}}</ref><ref name="bbc_stopafghanwar">{{cite news |title=Protesters demand end to bombing |publisher=BBC |date=November 10, 2001 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1648479.stm|access-date=November 11, 2006}}</ref>
More broadly, the invasion of Afghanistan appeared to opponents to be a stepping stone to the 2003 [[Iraq War]], increasing the geo-political reach of the United States:
Line 18 ⟶ 19:
{{main|War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)}}
Opposition also stems from the view that the US-led military forces are taking sides in an ongoing [[civil war]] in Afghanistan between its ethnic groups, backing minority [[Tajiks]] and [[Uzbeks]] against the [[Pashtun people|Pashtun]] majority of Afghanistan.<ref name="Quittin' time in Afghanistan">[http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/08/23/10569911-sun.html Quittin' time in Afghanistan]</ref><ref name="Who's Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?">{{cite
{{quote|It is not acceptable for us that in all this fighting, Afghans are dying. In the last three to four weeks, 500 to 600 Afghans were killed. [Even] if they are Taliban, they are sons of this land.▼
| Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]] on June 22, 2006<ref name="rawa_usattack" />}}▼
According to journalist [[Ahmed Rashid]], the noted author of several books on Afghanistan, the [[Taliban]] are in the fabric of that country, and defeating the Taliban would involve killing "large numbers of Pashtuns", an ethnic group with a long history in southeastern Afghanistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wbur.org/npr/123777455|title=Ahmed Rashid Offers An Update On The Taliban|date=February 17, 2010|publisher=WBUR|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
{{see also|Afghan Northern Alliance|Taliban|Pashtun people|Demography of Afghanistan}}
==Afghan civilian opposition to the invasion==
One of the best-known women's organization in Afghanistan, the [[Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan]] (RAWA), condemned the US invasion of Afghanistan, stating that "America ... has launched a vast aggression on our country".
{{quote|Our people have been caught in the claws of the monster of a vast war and destruction. ... The continuation of US attacks and the increase in the number of innocent civilian victims not only gives an excuse to the Taliban, but also will cause the empowering of the fundamentalist forces in the region and even in the world.| RAWA, Afghan women fighting for human rights and for social justice in Afghanistan, October 11, 2001<ref name="rawa_usattack"/>}}▼
They accused the US and its allies of "paying the least attention to the fate of democracy in Afghanistan" by first having supported for years a "Jehadis-fostering, Osama-fostering and Taliban-fostering" policy before the 2001 US invasion, only to now be "sharpening the dagger of the [[Afghan Northern Alliance|Northern Alliance]]" warlords and drug lords that were key allies of the U.S. in its invasion.<ref name="rawa_usattack">{{cite web |title=Taliban should be overthrown by the uprising of Afghan nation |author=RAWA |date=October 11, 2001 |url=http://www.rawa.org/us-strikes.htm |access-date=November 11, 2006}}</ref><ref name="The US has Returned Fundamentalism to Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1148|title=The US has Returned Fundamentalism to Afghanistan|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
In January 2009, an independent analysis by the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] in Washington, D.C. reported that "the majority of Afghans are now deeply opposed to the foreign troops on their soil" and that the presence of a foreign force in Afghanistan is the single most important factor behind the Afghan insurgency.<ref name="Who's Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?"/><ref name="Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War"/><ref name="A flawed strategy and a failed war in Afghanistan"/> However, according to a May 2009 BBC poll, 69% of Afghans surveyed thought it was at least mostly good that the U.S. military came into remove the Taliban<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf |title=Afghan Poll 2009 |access-date=August 3, 2011 |work=BBC News}}</ref> and in a June 2009 [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] survey found that about half of Afghan respondents felt that additional U.S. forces would help stabilize the security situation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/123335/Nearly-Half-Afghans-Think-Troops-Help.aspx |title=Gallup poll |publisher=Gallup.com |date=September 30, 2009 |access-date=August 3, 2011}}</ref>▼
▲{{quote|Our people have been caught in the claws of the monster of a vast war and destruction. ... The continuation of US attacks and the increase in the number of innocent civilian victims not only gives an excuse to the Taliban, but also will cause the empowering of the fundamentalist forces in the region and even in the world.| RAWA, Afghan women fighting for human rights and for social justice in Afghanistan, October 11, 2001<ref name="rawa_usattack"/>}}
A key and long-standing point of Afghan opposition to the war in Afghanistan has been the constant raids of Afghan homes by foreign military forces that have persisted despite long-repeated pleas and protests by the Afghan government.<ref name="Many in Afghanistan oppose Obama's troop buildup plans">[http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/242836 Many in Afghanistan oppose Obama's troop buildup plans]</ref><ref name="Rethinking the Afghanistan Mission">{{cite web|url=http://www.cigionline.org/blogs/2007/7/rethinking-afghanistan-mission|title=Rethinking the Afghanistan Mission|access-date=February 6, 2015|archive-date=February 7, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150207035744/https://www.cigionline.org/blogs/2007/7/rethinking-afghanistan-mission|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Karzai Asks U.S.-Led Coalition To Change Strategy Against Terrorism">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/09/mil-050921-rferl01.htm|title=Afghanistan: Karzai Asks U.S.-Led Coalition To Change Strategy Against Terrorism|author=John Pike|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Afghanistan: Chaos Central">{{cite web|url=http://mondediplo.com/2009/02/16talibans|title=Afghanistan: chaos central|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Afghan leader sends demands to U.S. on troop conduct">{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-12-18-afghan-troops_N.htm|title=Afghan leader sends demands to U.S. on troop conduct - USATODAY.com|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111304001.html|title=Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Afghans Want a Deal on Foreign Troops">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/asia/26afghan.html|title=Afghans Want a Deal on Foreign Troops|date=August 26, 2008|work=The New York Times|access-date=May 25, 2016}}</ref><ref name="Some Truth About Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/please-mr-president-some-_b_799285.html|title=Please Mr. President! Some Truth About Afghanistan|work=The Huffington Post|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>▼
==Afghan civilian casualties==
In a visit to Washington in May 2005, Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]] asked U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] to let the Afghan government have authority over house search operations regularly conducted by the U.S.-led foreign military forces in his country. Bush rejected the Afghan president's request.<ref name="Karzai Asks U.S.-Led Coalition To Change Strategy Against Terrorism"/>▼
{{main|Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021)}}
==Coalition military casualties==
In September 2005, Karzai again tried asking the US-led military forces for changes, saying: "Going into the Afghan homes – searching Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government – is something that should stop now. No coalition forces should go into Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government."<ref name="Karzai Asks U.S.-Led Coalition To Change Strategy Against Terrorism"/>▼
{{main|Coalition casualties in Afghanistan}}
The continued and mounting death tolls of foreign military forces in the decade-long war are another factor involved in the opposition to the war in Afghanistan, with hundreds currently dying per year. By October 2011, the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion, over 2,750 foreign soldiers had been killed in the war in Afghanistan.<ref>[http://icasualties.org/oef iCasualties.org Afghanistan coalition military fatalities]</ref><ref name="US had 'frighteningly simplistic' view of Afghanistan, says McChrystal">{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125382797428838875?mod=googlenews_wsj|title=U.S. Allies Await Afghan Review|author1=Stephen Fidler |author2=John W. Miller |name-list-style=amp |date=September 25, 2009|work=Wall Street Journal|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/07/us-frighteningly-simplistic-afghanistan-mcchrystal?newsfeed=true|title=US had 'frighteningly simplistic' view of Afghanistan, says McChrystal|author=Declan Walsh|work=The Guardian|date=October 7, 2011 |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
▲{{quote|It is not acceptable for us that in all this fighting, Afghans are dying. In the last three to four weeks, 500 to 600 Afghans were killed. [Even] if they are Taliban, they are sons of this land.
▲| Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]] on June 22, 2006<ref name="rawa_usattack" />}}
[[File:Coalition military casualties in afghanistan by month.svg|thumb|600px|none|Coalition fatalities per month since the war began in October 2001 as U.S. "Operation Enduring Freedom".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.icasualties.org/oef/ |title=Operation Enduring Freedom icasualties.org |access-date=November 9, 2010 |archive-date=April 6, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100406083558/http://icasualties.org/oef/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>]]
By the spring of 2006, mounting anger over the foreign military raids of Afghan homes, and accusations of foreign troops molesting women during the forced searches, helped prompt Afghan religious leaders to begin calling for armed resistance.<ref name="Afghanistan: Chaos Central"/>▼
In a December 2008 speech, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that in the previous month he had again asked that the U.S. military in his country cooperate with his government, sending the U.S. government a list of demands about troop conduct in his country: "Part of that list was that they shouldn't, on their own, enter the houses of our people and bombard our villages and detain our people." He gave no indication of having received any response back from the U.S.<ref name="Afghan leader sends demands to U.S. on troop conduct"/>▼
In November 2010, he yet again repeated his protest during a [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111304001.html Washington Post interview]: "The raids are a problem always. They were a problem then, they are a problem now. They have to go away. The Afghan people don't like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us."<ref name="Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan"/>▼
A 2010 government delegation led by President Hamid Karzai's advisor said that the foreign military forces had inflicted unreasonable damage and caused the displacement of many people.<ref name="Some Truth About Afghanistan"/><ref name="Natooffensive">[http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_print.php?id=68451 Nato offensive inflicts Afghans $100 mln damage in Kandahar]</ref>▼
==International public opinion==
{{main|International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan}}
International public opinion
While support for the war in Afghanistan
* September 2009 – United States: Growing American opposition to the war in Afghanistan reached an all-time high, while support for the U.S. war fell to an all-time low in September. A record majority 58% of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 39% support the U.S. war. The CNN – Opinion Research poll was conducted September 11–13, 2009.<ref name="Poll: Support for Afghan war at all-time low">{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/afghan.war.poll/#cnnSTCText|title=Poll: Support for Afghan war at all-time low|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
* September 2009 – United States: "Americans are broadly skeptical of President Obama's contention that the war in Afghanistan is necessary for the war against terrorism to be a success, and few see an increase in troops as the right thing to do." The plurality 42% of Americans want a reduction of the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Only 26% of Americans think more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. 51% of Americans think the war is not worth fighting, while 46% think it is. Fewer than half of Americans think winning the war in Afghanistan is necessary to win the "war on terrorism", with about as many saying it is not. The Washington Post – ABC News poll was conducted September 10–12, 2009.<ref name="A Skeptical View of Afghanistan">{{cite
{{quote|If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.|A senior advisor to US General [[Stanley McChrystal]], from [https://web.archive.org/web/20100624014247/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236/ the June 2010 article] that resulted in his dismissal as commander of all foreign military forces in Afghanistan.<ref name="The Runaway General"/><ref>{{cite
==International protests against the war==
Line 63 ⟶ 62:
The ongoing decade-long [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]] has repeatedly been the subject of large protests around the world, with the first large-scale demonstrations beginning in the days leading up to the war's official launch on October 7, 2001 as US "Operation Enduring Freedom".
==Foreign military occupation==
{{quote|If the populations of Afghanistan and the NATO countries were able to vote on this military occupation it could not continue indefinitely, and peace would finally be within reach.| [[Malalai Joya]], Member of the Afghan Parliament, August 19, 2009<ref name="Why Afghans have no hope in this week's vote">[http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1441/1/Why Afghans have no hope in this week's vote]</ref>{{better source needed|date=April 2013}}}}
▲In January 2009, an independent analysis by the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] in Washington, D.C.
On October 8, 2009, in a New York Times interview initiated by the White House, a senior White House official described the Afghan [[Taliban]] as an indigenous Afghan group that want to win back territory within their own country. The White House comment had come a day after the Taliban reasserted that their aim is "the obtainment of independence".<ref name="US may shift Afghan war tactics: report">[https://web.archive.org/web/20091012072851/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iH1WgxXpLu_caX4-aqObScOIxtVA US may shift Afghan war tactics: report]</ref>
==Foreign military raids of Afghan homes==
▲A key and long-standing point of
▲In a visit to Washington in May 2005, Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]] asked U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] to let the Afghan government have authority over house search operations regularly conducted by the U.S.-led foreign military forces in his country. Bush rejected the Afghan president's request.<ref name="Karzai Asks U.S.-Led Coalition To Change Strategy Against Terrorism"/>
▲In September 2005, Karzai again tried asking the US-led military forces for changes, saying: "Going into the Afghan homes – searching Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government – is something that should stop now. No coalition forces should go into Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government."<ref name="Karzai Asks U.S.-Led Coalition To Change Strategy Against Terrorism"/>
▲By the spring of 2006, mounting anger over the foreign military raids of Afghan homes, and accusations of foreign troops molesting women during the forced searches, helped prompt Afghan religious leaders to begin calling for armed resistance.<ref name="Afghanistan: Chaos Central"/>
▲In a December 2008 speech, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that in the previous month he had again asked that the U.S. military in his country cooperate with his government, sending the U.S. government a list of demands about troop conduct in his country: "Part of that list was that they shouldn't, on their own, enter the houses of our people and bombard our villages and detain our people." He gave no indication of having received any response back from the U.S.<ref name="Afghan leader sends demands to U.S. on troop conduct"/>
▲In November 2010, he yet again repeated his protest during a [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111304001.html Washington Post interview]: "The raids are a problem always. They were a problem then, they are a problem now. They have to go away. The Afghan people don't like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us."<ref name="Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan"/>
==Destruction of Afghan homes and crops==
▲
Two months earlier, in November 2010, the Afghan Rights Monitor (ARM), a human rights group, also reported widespread damage of Afghan homes in the same three districts, [[Arghandab District|Arghandab]], [[Zhari]], and [[Panjwai]], where tens of thousands of foreign forces had been carrying out military offensives over the past year.<ref name="Some Truth About Afghanistan"/><ref name="Natooffensive" />
==Rejection of the terrorism argument==
Line 79 ⟶ 102:
With the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, al Qaeda elements moved to Pakistan and other countries.<ref name="The Al Qaeda Clubhouse: Members lacking"/><ref name="CRS20100205">[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R41070.pdf Al Qaeda and Affiliates – Historical Perspective, Global Presence, and Implications for US Policy (Congressional Research Service, February 5, 2010)]</ref><ref name="CIA: At most, 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-at-most-50100-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html|title=CIA: At most, 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan|author=ABC News|work=ABC News Blogs|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
{{quote|The al Qaeda presence [in Afghanistan] is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.| U.S. National Security Adviser, General [[James L. Jones]], October 4, 2009<ref name="CRS20100205"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/afghan-attacks-add-to-call-for-more-troops//print/|title=Obama aide downplays extra troops in Afghanistan|website=[[The Washington Times]] |access-date=6 February 2015}}</ref>}}
On October 8, 2009, in a New York Times interview initiated by the White House, a senior White House official acknowledged that there are fewer than 100 [[al-Qaida]] fighters left in Afghanistan and that the Afghan [[Taliban]], an indigenous Afghan group seeking to win back territory within their own country, do not themselves pose a direct security threat to the United States. He said: "When the two are aligned, it's mainly on the tactical front."<ref name="US may shift Afghan war tactics: report"/>
Line 91 ⟶ 114:
In January 2009, an independent analysis by the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] in Washington, D.C. dismissed the argument that a withdrawal of the foreign military presence would allow al-Qaeda to operate in Afghanistan, pointing out that, first, the US-led military forces do not control the periphery of the Afghan territory anyway, and, second, that targeted operations with the agreement of the Kabul government could be used instead.<ref name="Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War">[http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/afghan_war-strategy.pdf Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War]</ref>
Others have also made the point that al-Qaeda operates in many other countries and simply does not need Afghanistan. The [[New York Times]] [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all reported] in November 2008 that a 2004 classified order identified at least 15 to 20 other countries outside of Afghanistan and Iraq where al-Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sanctuary. The countries listed in the secret order signed by US Defense Secretary [[Donald H. Rumsfeld]] with the approval of US President [[George W. Bush]] included Syria, Pakistan, [[Yemen]], Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states. Since 2004, the United States has repeatedly used the broad, secret authority granted by that order to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaeda and other militants in many countries outside of Afghanistan, including Somalia, Ethiopia, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya, the Philippines, and elsewhere.<ref>{{cite
{{See also|Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa|Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe|Al-Qaeda involvement in the Middle East|Al Qaeda Network Exord}}
Line 97 ⟶ 120:
{{quote|If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases – evidently there are none now – must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?| Conservative pundit [[George Will]], September 1, 2009<ref name="Time to Get Out of Afghanistan"/>}}
In an influential September 2009 article entitled [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912_pf.html "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan"], conservative commentator [[George Will]] similarly argued that "forces should be substantially reduced", and "America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units" in targeted operations.<ref name="Time to Get Out of Afghanistan">{{cite
U.S. Vice President [[Joe Biden]] and a number of other senior administration officials also favor moving toward a more scaled-back strategy that focuses on targeted, surgical operations against senior insurgent figures using drones and small special operations teams.<ref>{{cite
Others have further made the point that [[al-Qaeda]] does not need a safe haven at all, and that terrorists can and have learned their craft in a [[Hamburg]] apartment, a home in [[Colorado]], a flight school in [[Florida]], or myriad other places around the world.<ref name="Who's Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/will-obama-abandon-afghanistan-1.806790|title=Will Obama abandon Afghanistan?|date=September 23, 2009|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="West should vote with its feet">{{cite news |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10597268&pnum=0 |title=West should vote with its feet |author=Dyer, Gwynne |author-link=Gwynne Dyer |date=September 15, 2009 |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |access-date=November 1, 2011}}</ref>
Line 110 ⟶ 133:
| former U.S. Marine captain and State Department official Matthew Hoh, September 10, 2009<ref name="A letter from Afghanistan that every American must read"/>}}
In a September 16, 2009 Washington Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977_pf.html article], [[Paul R. Pillar]], deputy chief of the counterterrorist center at the CIA from 1997 to 1999 and director of graduate studies at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, questioned the assumption that al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups need a haven at all, pointing out that "terrorists' organizations have become more network-like, not beholden to any one headquarters."<ref name="Who's Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?"/><ref>{{cite
In a September 30, 2009 [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/polk open letter to President Obama], foreign policy veteran [[William R. Polk]] stated: "Since terrorist attacks can be mounted from many places, the only effective long-term defense against them is to deal with their causes."<ref name="An Open Letter to President Obama"/>
Line 116 ⟶ 139:
{{quote|The Al Qaeda network today also comprises semi-autonomous or self radicalized actors, who often have only peripheral or ephemeral ties to either the core cadre in Pakistan or affiliated groups elsewhere. According to U.S. officials Al Qaeda cells and associates are located in over 70 countries.| Congressional Research Service report, February 5, 2010<ref name="CRS20100205"/>}}
When asked by [[Bob Woodward]] why al-Qaeda, which is comparatively safe in its current sanctuaries in Pakistan, would even want to return to Afghanistan, the [[National Security Advisor (United States)|National Security Adviser]] of the United States, General [[James L. Jones]], replied, "That's a good question. ... This is certainly one of the questions that we will be discussing. This is one of the questions, for example, that one could come back at with General McChrystal."<ref name="Obama to Reassess Afghanistan War">{{cite
===Creating and training insurgents===
Line 125 ⟶ 148:
{{quote|The bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.| former U.S. Marine captain and State Department official Matthew Hoh, September 10, 2009<ref name="A letter from Afghanistan that every American must read"/>}}
In his September 10, 2009 [http://warincontext.org/2009/10/27/a-letter-from-afghanistan-that-every-american-must-read/ letter] resigning over the American war in Afghanistan, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency, Matthew Hoh, the State Department's Senior Civilian Representative in [[Zabul Province]], wrote: "The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified."<ref name="A letter from Afghanistan that every American must read">{{cite web|url=http://warincontext.org/2009/10/27/a-letter-from-afghanistan-that-every-american-must-read/|title=A letter from Afghanistan that every American must read|work=War in Context|date=October 27, 2009 |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Matthew Hoh September 10, 2009 letter of resignation">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447 Matthew Hoh September 10, 2009 letter of resignation]</ref><ref name="U.S. official resigns over Afghan war">{{cite
As with the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]], he advised that the U.S. reduce its combat forces in Afghanistan, if not remove them entirely.<ref name="U.S. official resigns over Afghan war"/><ref>{{cite
In a statement made to New York Times columnist [[Nicholas Kristof]], a group of former intelligence officials and other experts decided to go public with their concerns and warned:<ref name="The Afghanistan Abyss">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06kristof.html|title=The Afghanistan Abyss|date=September 6, 2009|work=The New York Times|access-date=May 25, 2016}}</ref>
Line 141 ⟶ 164:
In his September 30, 2009 [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/polk open letter to President Obama], foreign policy veteran [[William R. Polk]] argued that trying to defeat the Taliban militarily is not in America's interest, saying: "The harder we try, the more likely terrorism will be to increase and spread."<ref name="An Open Letter to President Obama"/>
According to the August 2010 report by the Afghanistan Study Group: "The current U.S. military effort is helping fuel the very insurgency we are attempting to defeat."<ref>{{cite
==Geo-political and corporate interests==
Line 148 ⟶ 171:
{{quote|The current war in Afghanistan is not about democracy, women's rights, education or nation building. Al-Qaida, the other excuse, barely exists. Its handful of members long ago decamped to Pakistan. The war really is about oil pipeline routes and western domination of the energy-rich Caspian Basin.|[[Eric Margolis (journalist)|Eric Margolis]], defence analyst and journalist, August 2009<ref name="Quittin' time in Afghanistan"/>}}
Opposition to the war in Afghanistan often has at its core the view that the U.S. invasion, decade-long presence, and military build-up in Afghanistan are being conducted for [[geo-political]] purposes and U.S. corporate energy interests.<ref name="Quittin' time in Afghanistan"/><ref name="Some Truth About Afghanistan"/><ref name="What good friends left behind">{{cite
=== Pipeline path 'clearing and holding' forces ===
Line 156 ⟶ 179:
{{See also|Project for a New American Century|Full-spectrum dominance|CIA activities in Afghanistan|Blowback (intelligence)}}
In a November 2, 2001 article entitled "US Bombs Are Boosting the Taliban", anti-Taliban Afghan leader [[Abdul Haq (Afghan leader)|Abdul Haq]] again presented the case he had repeatedly been making against U.S. military action in his country, but seemed resigned that the U.S. was not going to listen:<ref name="US Bombs Are Boosting the Taliban">{{cite
{{quote|The US is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose. And we don't like that. Because Afghans are now being made to suffer for these Arab fanatics, but we all know who brought these Arabs to Afghanistan in the 1980s, armed them and gave them a base. It was the Americans and the [[CIA]]. And the Americans who did this all got medals and good careers, while all these years Afghans suffered from these Arabs and their allies. Now, when America is attacked, instead of punishing the Americans who did this, it punishes the Afghans.|[[Abdul Haq (Afghan leader)|Abdul Haq]], anti-Taliban Pashtun leader, October–November 2001, days before he was killed<ref name="US Bombs Are Boosting the Taliban"/>}}
Line 169 ⟶ 192:
UNODC reported in its November 2008 report that the majority 58% of opium poppy-growing farmers in Afghanistan began to cultivate opium after the 2001 U.S. invasion.<ref name="Afghanistan Opium Survey 2008"/>
In July 2000, the Taliban leader, [[
Even compared to 2000 – the year before the Taliban opium ban of 2000–2001 saw effect – the overall opium-related income in the Afghan economy had risen nearly fourfold by 2008, reflecting higher export volumes as well as higher prices.<ref name="Afghanistan Opium Survey 2008"/>
Line 182 ⟶ 205:
{{quote|The Congressional Research Service estimates that we have now spent or committed $300 billion, and that is only the money for which we can account. Some will say it is twice that, for this war, like the war in Iraq, was funded off-budget with no transparency. ... $300 billion. That is about $101 million per day for 2,950 days. Or, to put out another average, that is $3,947 per family of four that every American family has paid to date. ... To continue this war at its current level and to escalate it beyond its current scope is a trillion dollar question. Are those who would so cavalierly make this commitment willing to demand another $3,947.36 from every American family of four to pay for it? ... Thousands have protested federal spending to rebuild America's schools, roads, bridges and critical infrastructure, but are they willing to do the same when their taxes are being spent to rebuild Kabul?| U.S. Congress Rep. [[Eric Massa]], November 4, 2009<ref name="Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 163 (Wednesday, November 4, 2009)"/>}}
In September 2009, the [[Christian Science Monitor]] [http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/09/15/economic-scene-afghanistan-will-cost-us-more-than-iraq/ reported] that in the upcoming budget year, the U.S. war in Afghanistan would, for the first time, cost American taxpayers more than the U.S. war in Iraq. By the end of September 2010, the total military budget costs for both wars will have exceeded $1 [[Orders of magnitude (numbers)|trillion]].<ref name="ECONOMIC SCENE: Afghanistan will cost US more than Iraq">{{cite
By October 2009, news reports indicated U.S. costs of fighting the war in Afghanistan at $165 million every 24 hours.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6869503.ece|title=Login|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
Line 199 ⟶ 222:
| U.S. Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] in September 2009<ref>[http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/social-critic/2009/oct/21/peaceful/ Some reasons why the war in Afghanistan is insanity]</ref><ref name="Sanders Calls for National Dialogue on Afghanistan Exit Strategy">{{cite web|url=http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/472505/sanders_worries_that_afghanistan_will_be_another_vietnam|title=John Nichols|access-date=6 February 2015}}</ref>}}
In December 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a surge of yet another thirty thousand U.S. troops into Afghanistan, increasing the buildup of the U.S. military in Afghanistan by another 40-45% and adding further red ink to the United States' $1.4 trillion [[deficit spending]] and [[United States public debt|national debt]] of over $12 trillion. The administration estimated the cost for this surge at $30 billion (presumably for an initial 18-month period). However, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with authority over the Pentagon's budget, U.S. Congress Rep. [[John Murtha]], estimated that the surge would cost at least $40 billion – $10 billion more than the administration's estimate. The congressman also called for a surtax to finance the war, saying the U.S. risks the sort of [[inflation]] seen in the [[Vietnam War]] era.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aezzfE6Fov.A&pos=8|title=Afghanistan Surge to Cost $40 Billion, Democrat Says (Update2)|website=[[Bloomberg News]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-02-war-costs_N.htm|title=Cost of Afghan war explodes with new strategy - USATODAY.com|website=[[USA Today]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
By February 2010, with thousands more U.S. troops still to arrive, the monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan to U.S. taxpayers had exceeded that of the U.S. war in Iraq – consuming $6.7 billion per month, compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq, and amounting to about $223 million per day.<ref name="A flawed strategy and a failed war in Afghanistan">{{cite
{{quote|Military operations in Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers more than $200,000,000,000 in deficit spending since 2001.
Line 208 ⟶ 231:
By May 2010, the estimate for fiscal year 2010 that was being reported had risen to $105 billion, amounting to $288 million per day. Meanwhile, the cost of the war to U.S. taxpayers in fiscal year 2011 was being projected at $117 billion, a figure amounting to around $320 million per day. Todd Harrison of the [[Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments]] stated: "The cost just cascades. That's always been an issue in Afghanistan."<ref name="Afghan war costs now outpace Iraq's"/>
By December 2010, estimates had the cost of the war running at as high as $13 billion a month, or over $433 million per day, and a USA Today / Gallup poll reported that over two-thirds of Americans, the 68% majority, worry that the costs of the war in Afghanistan make it more difficult to address the problems facing them at home.<ref name="Some Truth About Afghanistan"/><ref name="Obama's isolation grows on the Afghanistan war">{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-01-1Awar01_CV_N.htm?csp=34news|title=Obama's isolation grows on the Afghanistan war - USATODAY.com|website=[[USA Today]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
In February 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary [[Robert M. Gates]] bluntly warned that it would be unwise to ever again engage in such a『costly – and controversial – large-scale American military intervention』as in Afghanistan or Iraq.<ref name="Warning Against Wars Like Iraq and Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general|title=Gates Warns Against More Wars Like Iraq and Afghanistan|website=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.afghanistanstudygroup.org/2011/03/01/%E2%80%9Cnever-get-involved-in-a-land-war-in-asia%E2%80%9D-gates%E2%80%99-west-point-speech-and-a-tipping-point-in-afghanistan/|title="Never Get Involved in a Land War in Asia": Gates' West Point Speech and a Tipping Point in Afghanistan|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
{{quote|In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it.| U.S. Defense Secretary [[Robert M. Gates]], February 25, 2011<ref name="Warning Against Wars Like Iraq and Afghanistan"/>}}
Line 235 ⟶ 258:
According to estimates near the beginning of 2011, the U.S. war in Afghanistan would cost U.S. taxpayers an $116 billion for that year – nearly twice the amounts being deeply slashed from domestic programs, including key U.S. infrastructure needs such as water, air traffic, and rail projects – while the minimum projected cost of the U.S. war for the next two years, $200 billion, exceeds the domestic budget [[Government budget deficit|deficit]] of all 50 states put together.<ref name="Bid to end Afghan war funding hits GOP roadblock">{{cite web|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F02%2F21%2FMN3M1HQ55M.DTL|title=Bid to end Afghan war funding hits GOP roadblock|work=SFGate|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Afghanistan Withdrawal Resolution Passes Democratic National Committee Without Dissent"/>
By May 2011, the Washington Post reported that in the face of increasing [[deficit spending]] and more cuts to domestic programs in the U.S. the immense cost of the war in Afghanistan would likely be the primary factor in the discussions to reduce troops: Spending by the U.S. military alone on its operations in Afghanistan was heading to $113 billion for the fiscal year, with the military seeking another $107 billion for the next fiscal year. According to a senior administration official: "Where we're at right now is simply not sustainable."<ref name="Cost of war in Afghanistan will be major factor in troop-reduction talks">{{cite
With the costs to maintain the Afghan army and police forces, estimated at $6 billion to $8 billion a year, far exceeding the means of the Afghan government whose annual budget totals only about $1.5 billion, he stated: "We're building an army that they'll never be able to pay for, which means we're going to have to pay for it for years and years to come."<ref name="Cost of war in Afghanistan will be major factor in troop-reduction talks"/>
Line 264 ⟶ 287:
According to a study by the [[RAND]] Corporation, an American think tank working for the U.S. military, [[counter-insurgency]] campaigns won by governments have averaged 14 years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/08/27/obamas-afghan-war-a-race-against-time/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090830063458/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/08/27/obamas-afghan-war-a-race-against-time/|url-status=dead|archive-date=August 30, 2009|title=Obama's Afghan war – a race against time|work=Reuters|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
In a July 2009 [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-633842,00.html interview], when asked when German troops would withdraw from Afghanistan, former German Defence Minister [[Peter Struck (politician)|Peter Struck]] replied: "I'm afraid it could take another 10 years."<ref name="Two Views on Afghanistan Mission – 'The War Is a Breeding Program for Terrorists'">{{cite web|url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-633842,00.html|title=Druckversion - Two Views on Afghanistan Mission: 'The War Is a Breeding Program for Terrorists' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International|publisher=SPIEGEL ONLINE|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
In March 2011, U.S. Congressman [[Bruce Braley]] reported that American military commanders in Afghanistan very clearly expect – under the best-case scenario – a "significant U.S. presence" to continue in that country for approximately another decade. His report of the expectations of a continued U.S. military presence through 2020 came after a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan where he met with U.S. General [[David Petraeus]], U.S. Ambassador and former general [[Karl Eikenberry]], as well as other military officials.<ref name="Commanders Expect A 'Significant' U.S. Presence In Afghanistan For 8 To 10 More Years: Dem Rep"/>
Line 278 ⟶ 301:
The head of the British Army and former [[International Security Assistance Force|ISAF]] commander, General Sir [[David Richards (British Army officer)|David Richards]], stated on August 8, 2009 that he believed Britain could still be militarily involved in Afghanistan in "30 to 40 years" time, raising the possibility of a military presence in Afghanistan until the year 2050.<ref name="Army Chief: We'll be in Afghanistan until 2050">{{cite web|url=http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/119399/Army-chief-We-ll-be-in-Afghanistan-until-2050|title=Army chief: We'll be in Afghanistan until 2050|work=Express.co.uk|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
Asked how long U.S. combat forces would be needed in Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Secretary [[Robert Gates]] replied it was "unpredictable" and "perhaps a few years". However, over the longer term, Gates said that even if security were achieved, progress in building Afghanistan's economy and government institutions would remain "a decades-long enterprise", and that the United States was "committed to that side of the equation for an indefinite period of time."<ref>{{cite
American defense analyst John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org envisions a near-endless scenario in Afghanistan: "It's not going to end. And it may get worse before it gets better ... it's going to last for decades."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060919-canada-afghanistan.htm|title=Risk of death soars for Canada's troops|author=John Pike|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
Line 296 ⟶ 319:
In November 1986, with 109,000 troops in Afghanistan and the war soon heading into an 8th year, the military counter-insurgency was not working. Marshal [[Sergei Akhromeyev]], commander of Soviet armed forces, was summoned to report on the situation to the USSR's [[politburo]] in the [[Kremlin]]. His strong assessment was that the army needed more resources, and he warned that without more men and equipment "this war will continue for a very long time". By the peak of the Soviet deployment in 1987, Moscow had 140,000 troops in Afghanistan.<ref name="West ignores lessons of Soviet humiliation in Afghanistan" /><ref name="Pressure grows in Afghanistan for Hamid Karzai to strike a deal">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/13/hamid-karzai-power-sharing-afghanistan|title=Afghan election: Pressure grows for Hamid Karzai to strike a deal|author=Declan Walsh|work=The Guardian|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
In September 2009, with 108,000 to 110,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan under U.S. command and the war soon heading into a 9th year, the military counter-insurgency was not working. A 66-page report by U.S. general [[Stanley McChrystal]] to the [[White House]] administration on the situation in Afghanistan, [[News leak|leaked]] in advance of an anticipated troop request, gave his strong assessment that more troops and resources were needed. McChrystal warned: "Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it. Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure." After officially receiving McChrystal's request for more troops, U.S. president Barack Obama would announce that some 30,000 more U.S. troops would be sent to Afghanistan over the course of the following year.<ref name="Time to Get Out of Afghanistan"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/09/afghanistan-mcchrystal-general|title=Top US general calls for new strategy in Afghanistan|work=New Statesman|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6215276/Afghan-mission-risks-failure-without-more-troops-says-US-general.html|title=Afghan mission risks 'failure' without more troops, says US general|author=Alex Spillius |date=September 21, 2009|work=Telegraph|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/joeBiden/idUSTRE58L2PS20090922|title=A D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why?|work=Reuters|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551120,00.html|title=Sources: McChrystal Wants Up to 40,000 More Troops in Afghanistan|publisher=Fox News|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>[https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9AT5RDO0 Commander to send troop request for Afghanistan]{{dead link|date=June 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/aides-mullen-likely-sign-afghanistan-troop-request/|title=Aides: Mullen Likely to Sign off on Afghanistan Troop Request |publisher=Fox news|access-date=May 25, 2016}}</ref><ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Troop+request+on+table+as+Obama+weighs+Afghan+mission-a01612018826 Troop request on table as Obama weighs Afghan mission ]></ref><ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=9235427 Analysis: Obama Borrows Soviet's Afghan Endgame]></ref><ref name="The Runaway General">{{cite
{{quote|It is sometimes frightening to see how similar NATO military operations are to Soviet ones in the 1980s.
Line 335 ⟶ 358:
Senator [[Dick Durbin|Richard Durbin]], assistant majority leader in the Senate, said: "Sending additional troops would not be the right thing to do."<ref name="Obama struggles to gather support for Afghan surge"/>
In September 2009, Senator [[John F. Kerry]], chairman of the [[Senate Foreign Relations Committee]] and a veteran and protester of the [[Vietnam War]], warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam and said that the United States needed to have an [[exit strategy]].<ref name="Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=print|title=Advisers to Obama Are Split on Afghan Troop Request - NYTimes.com|access-date=February 6, 2015|newspaper=The New York Times|date=September 26, 2009|last1=Baker|first1=Peter|last2=Bumiller|first2=Elisabeth}}</ref><ref>[https://archive.today/20130124171735/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i-ND1wGIRzFKVd2SrBCzb_QnMGlg Top US senator pleads for patience on Afghanistan]</ref><ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/kerry_points_to.html Kerry points to Vietnam lessons on Afghanistan]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438660617984826?mod=googlenews_wsj|title=John Kerry: Testing Afghanistan Assumptions - WSJ|author=John Kerry|date=September 27, 2009|work=WSJ|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
Former Secretary of State [[Colin L. Powell]], a retired four-star Army general, expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success.<ref name="Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers"/>
Line 367 ⟶ 390:
{{quote|The hundreds of billions of dollars we spend over there on war ... All that – mostly borrowed money – means that we're not investing at home. It means our roads and our bridges aren't being fixed. It means our schools aren't being fixed. It means we're not investing in healthcare, and a whole range of other things that we need to do to get our economy back on track.| Rep. [[Jim McGovern (American politician)|Jim McGovern]], May 2010<ref name="Demand an Afghanistan Exit Strategy"/>}}
On July 1, 2010, 60% of Democratic representatives in the House voted in favor of the legislation to require a timetable and plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. In all, 153 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted for the amendment. 93 Democrats and 7 Republicans also voted for an amendment from Rep. [[Barbara Lee]] that would have required the war funds to be spent only on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Nearly all Republicans opposed the amendments however, and neither passed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.truth-out.org/on-afghanistan-michael-steele-speaks-me61216|title=Robert Naiman - On Afghanistan, Michael Steele Speaks for Me|author=Anonymous|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite
In January 2011, Republican figure [[Grover Norquist]], founder of [[Americans for Tax Reform]], called on conservatives to have a conversation on the possibility of withdrawing from Afghanistan. He called attention to a nationwide poll of conservatives that showed that the majority 71% of self-identified conservative voters, including over two-thirds (67%) of [[Tea party movement|Tea Party]] supporters, are worried about the war's cost to taxpayers, and stated that, given the war's enormous price tag, it was time to consider leaving.<ref name="Tea Party eyes the cost of war in Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=http://www.caivn.org/article/2011/01/15/tea-party-eyes-cost-war-afghanistan|title=Tea Party eyes the cost of war in Afghanistan|work=IVN.us|access-date=February 6, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110911142809/http://www.caivn.org/article/2011/01/15/tea-party-eyes-cost-war-afghanistan|archive-date=September 11, 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=October 2019}}<ref name="Afghanistan Study Group – Survey Results of Conservatives">{{cite web|url=http://www.afghanistanstudygroup.org/2011/01/12/afghanistan-study-group-survey-results-of-conservatives/|title=Afghanistan Study Group – Survey Results of Conservatives|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=October 2019}}
Line 380 ⟶ 403:
===Concerns that the war could derail Obama's presidency===
Many that have hopes in President Obama's presidency but oppose the war in Afghanistan are concerned that the war could derail plans for his presidency the way the [[Vietnam War]] ruined the presidency of [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].<ref name="An Open Letter to President Obama"/><ref name="A Voice Worth Heeding on Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/us/05iht-letter.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=all|title=Letter From Washington - A Voice Worth Heeding on Afghanistan - NYTimes.com|website=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Afghanistan – the proxy war">{{cite web|url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/11/afghanistan___the_proxy_war/|title=Afghanistan - the proxy war|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/amy_goodman/article_989eb18a-a2f0-11de-b971-001cc4c03286.html|title=Afghanistan war threatens to make us 'the evil we deplore'|author=Amy Goodman|work=madison.com|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/afghanistan.obama|title=Reassessing Obama's 'war of necessity'|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/editorial-op-ed/eighth-year-of-afghan-war-should-be-the-last-1.644433|title=Eighth year of Afghan War should be the last|work=The Hofstra Chronicle|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
{{quote|As long as we are there, the war will continue, with disastrous consequences for all the things you want to do and we Americans need you to do.| [[William R. Polk]], in an [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/polk open letter to President Obama]<ref name="US Lawmakers Question Afghanistan Strategy"/>}}
Line 395 ⟶ 418:
* On September 14, 2009, Canadian Prime Minister [[Stephen Harper]] reaffirmed that Canada would withdraw its troops in 2011 even if President [[Barack Obama]] asked him for an extension. A spokesperson for Harper said『Canada's position is clear – The military component of the mission ends in 2011.』Harper had first announced Canada's troop removal in 2008, stating that Canada had done its part after being in Afghanistan since after the 2001 U.S. invasion, and in [[Kandahar province|Kandahar]], one of Afghanistan's most dangerous provinces, since 2006.<ref name="Canadian PM says he won't extend Afghan mission">[https://archive.today/20090925011513/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091402427_pf.html Canadian PM says he won't extend Afghan mission]</ref>
* On September 16, 2009, Japanese Prime Minister [[Yukio Hatoyama]] signalled through key cabinet choices that he would keep his election pledge to withdraw Japan's military support from the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Hatoyama appointed as his Defence Minister 71-year-old [[Toshimi Kitazawa]], a strong opponent of the country's military support for the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and included in his cabinet [[Mizuho Fukushima]], leader of his coalition partner, the [[Social Democratic Party (Japan)|Social Democratic Party]] (SDP), which is committed to upholding Japan's "peace" constitution and its explicit ban on the use of force in resolving international disputes. The appointments suggest that Japanese military ships providing fuel and water to U.S. and British naval vessels in the [[Indian Ocean]] will be called home when the current term of their deployment expires in February.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6836939.ece|title=Login|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
* On September 17, 2009, Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] said it would be best for foreign troops to leave Afghanistan soon. He also announced that he planned to bring home at least 500 of Italy's 2,800 troops deployed in Afghanistan "in the next few weeks". Italy had increased its troop level by 500 before Afghanistan's [[2009 Afghan presidential election|August 20 national election]]. A key coalition partner in Berlusconi's government, Reforms Minister [[Umberto Bossi]] said he hoped Italy's 2,800 troops could leave Afghanistan within 3 months by Christmas. Berlusconi's announcement followed the deaths of six Italian soldiers in a [[suicide bombing]] in [[Kabul]] the day before, which had brought to 20 the number of Italian troops that have been killed since Italy's troops arrived in Afghanistan in 2004.<ref name="Berlusconi: Best to exit Afghanistan soon">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091700762_pf.html Berlusconi: Best to exit Afghanistan soon]{{dead link|date=June 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=asSviGI5I3hc|title=Berlusconi Says Italy to Withdraw 500 Afghanistan Troops Soon|website=[[Bloomberg News]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
{{quote|We are all convinced it's best for everybody to get out soon.
| Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]], September 17, 2009<ref name="Berlusconi: Best to exit Afghanistan soon"/>}}
* On September 22, 2009, British Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] insisted he was focused on cutting back on the number of British troops in Afghanistan as soon as Afghan security forces were able to carry out their own security duties. ''[[The Times]]'' had reported that Britain was considering deploying a further 1,000 troops to its contingent of 9,000 troops in Afghanistan in response to the report from the American commander of all foreign military forces in Afghanistan, U.S. General [[Stanley McChrystal]]. Brown had previously stated in a keynote speech that he was considering a short-term increase in British troops in Afghanistan as a prelude to a British exit. The British toll since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 stood at 217 deaths.<ref name="British troop numbers to be cut in Afghanistan"/><ref name="UK's Brown seeks fewer UK troops in Afghanistan">[https://web.archive.org/web/20091001190757/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9_7k8qJTNQhlZw3eFUA8mNiiWwAD9ASAL2O0 UK's Brown seeks fewer UK troops in Afghanistan]</ref>
* On October 6, 2009, the Dutch parliament voted by a large majority to pull Dutch troops out of Afghanistan in August 2010 as scheduled and bring them home. The motion to respect the scheduled withdrawal date was drawn up by two of the three parties in the coalition government, and was voted for by a large majority of Dutch MPs, despite pressure by the United States again for a second extension of the Dutch military involvement in Afghanistan.<ref name="Parliament votes against new Afghan mission">{{cite web|url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/10/parliament_votes_against_new_a.php|title=Parliament votes against new Afghan mission|work=DutchNews.nl|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Dutch Government Falls Over Stance on Troops">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/world/europe/21dutch.html|title=Dutch Government Collapses Over Its Stance on Troops for Afghanistan|date=February 21, 2010|work=The New York Times|access-date=May 25, 2016}}</ref>
* On October 14, 2009, Japanese Defence Minister [[Toshimi Kitazawa]] said that Japan will end its Indian Ocean naval refuelling mission that supports the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. Kitazawa said: "We will calmly withdraw (our ships) when the law expires next January". While in opposition, Prime Minister [[Yukio Hatoyama]]'s party argued that Japan, officially [[pacifist]] since World War II, should not abet "American wars".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98290b14-b818-11de-8ca9-00144feab49a.html|title=Japan to end Afghan refuelling mission|work=Financial Times|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100412074624/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jTGM0WoCnNY3iJKIiZgVFhtu4vQw Japan to end Afghan refuelling mission in January]</ref>
* On January 6, 2010, Canadian Prime Minister [[Stephen Harper]] made clear that virtually all Canadian soldiers will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2011, stating: "We will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy." He emphasized again, "The bottom line is that the military mission will end in 2011."<ref>[https://windsorstar.com/news/Afghan+mission+strictly+civilian+after+2011/2413812/story.html Afghanistan will be 'strictly civilian mission' after 2011, PM says]</ref><ref>[http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=2414456 Afghan Pullout Final: PM]</ref>
* In February 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands, [[Wouter Bos]], promised to bring Dutch troops home from Afghanistan by the end of the year, as scheduled. The Dutch public, as well as the Dutch Parliament, favor the withdrawal of their military from Afghanistan. The Netherlands is also facing a forecasted 2010 budget [[Government budget deficit|deficit]] of 6.1% of [[gross domestic product|GDP]].<ref name="Dutch Parliament Debates Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703315004575073394281448752?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world|title=Dutch Parliament Debates Afghanistan|author=John W. Miller in Brussels and Maarten Van Tartwijk in Amsterdam|date=February 19, 2010|work=WSJ|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref> Bos reiterated to Dutch voters the pledge he had already made to them in 2007, saying at a party meeting:
Line 424 ⟶ 447:
* On July 6, 2011, British Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] announced that 500 British troops would return home in 2012. France and Belgium also recently announced troop reductions.<ref name="Canada ends combat mission in Afghanistan"/><ref name="Kandahar then and now"/>
* On July 7, 2011, Canada officially ended its direct involvement in any combat operations in Afghanistan, withdrawing its nearly 3,000 troops. Prime Minister [[Stephen Harper]] had pledged in 2008 and 2009 to withdraw all Canadian military troops from Afghanistan, only to then announce in 2010 that 950 Canadian troops would stay until 2014 to train Afghan military and police forces. The Canadian government informed NATO that its trainers would not operate in dangerous parts of the country or in the field with Afghan troops: Some 350 will be support staff or will work in NATO headquarters offices in [[Kabul]], with the rest serving mainly as mentors or advisors within heavily fortified training centres in Kabul and in two small groups at schools in the generally peaceful cities of [[Herat]] and [[Mazar-e Sharif]].<ref name="Canada ends combat mission in Afghanistan">{{cite web|url=http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/canada-ends-combat-mission-in-afghanistan/story-e6frfku0-1226090186591|title=Canada ends combat mission in Afghanistan|work=NewsComAu|access-date=May 25, 2016}}</ref><ref name="Kandahar then and now">{{cite web|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/many-in-kandahar-fear-looming-disaster-as-canada-withdraws/article2092248/singlepage/#articlecontent|title=Many in Kandahar fear looming disaster as Canada withdraws|work=The Globe and Mail|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/11/greg-weston-troop-extension.html|title=Afghanistan 'training mission' doesn't add up|date=November 15, 2010|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/canadian-combat-troops-exit-afghanistan---canadian-trainers-enter/article2089121/|title=Canadian combat troops exit Afghanistan - Canadian trainers enter|work=The Globe and Mail|access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
* On July 12, 2011, French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] announced that France would withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 2012, and all its combat units by the end of 2014, speeding up its withdrawal along with other countries. He stated "You have to know how to end a war." The majority of people in France want their military withdrawn from Afghanistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE76B1IV20110712|title=Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News - Reuters.com|website=[[Reuters]] |access-date=February 6, 2015}}</ref>
==See also==
| |||