The GREAT DEBATE of should U.S OF A bring back troops from Afghanistan

The US War of Aggression in Afghanistan and its subsequent occupation should be ceased immediately and reparations (not military aid) should be paid to the Afghan state and those affected. The Afghans have had over 10 years of this nightmare and should be left to themselves. Any talk of nation building and security of the Afghan state is irrelevant. Illegal wars of aggression and subsequent illegal occupations require immediate withdrawal.

Reparations? I don't think so. We can't afford to pay for any other country to help itself, when we are 15 trillion dollars in debt. Besides, who would we give the money too? The Afghan National Government? Those corrupt bastards? I sure hope not. We just need to pull out and stop worrying about it. Make it no longer our problem.

If it can go straight to those affected, great. If not it should go to the state. I believe the UK should pay for the death and destruction it caused as well. The same goes for the rest of the NATO forces (albeit small). I'm not saying it has to be an instant transfer of reparations but agreements should be made.

Maybe sometime in the future, but really, who is going to make us? We should just cut all ties to Afghanistan. No longer our problem.

Ah. The sad reality of the world.

Us first, and if we can spare it, them later.

So you are saying that they are in a worse state now than they were when they were under an Islamic theocracy?

No, I'm saying they need to immediately stop occupying a country that was subject to a war of aggression and pay reparations. The country could've been a democracy and the same would apply.

If a terror group in Ireland blew up something in the US it would not be OK to invade and occupy Ireland for 10 years.

War was sought and diplomacy wasn't followed through. For starters the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden. Just like any state, evidence is a key requirement before someone is extradited. The US would not sway from its bin Laden-or-be-invaded position. I think the Taliban even offered to hand him over to Pakistan without evidence to stop the bombing.

If the US had pursued diplomacy, or received backing from the UN I might think differently.

The Taliban refused to hand over Bin laden.

That simply isn't true. This link at least shows that the Taliban wanted proof (perfectly understandable). And the article states:

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-02/...mbassador-abdul-salam-zaeef-bin?_s=PM:asiapcf

I'd love to see evidence of the Taliban not cooperating because all the evidence I've seen, and what people like Noam Chomsky think, is that the US never had any intention of cooperating. It was their way or the highway. The article itself demonstrates that:

and Blair as well:

Sounds pretty non-cooperative to me.

bin Laden was already an international terrorist before 9/11. The Taliban were already a dystopian theocracy before 9/11. Their refusal to hand him over on the spot is indicative of their apologetic nature towards his actions. Of course this is extralegal information, but IR doesn't operate within strictly legal bounds and I-law is pathetic at best. Countries act according to their own interests and the 'laws' that bind their actions are only worth something, both functionally and as a matter of legal worth, if the backers of I-law are willing to put muscle behind them. You can't evaluate the situation strictly in terms of what is legal, because legality doesn't mean jack in status quo IR (certainly not in 2001).

In this case you've got the international hegemon and several of its allies making a completely reasonable demand towards what basically amounts to a rouge state. Noncompliance is unthinkable, and the element of non-negotiability was a political necessity; when the Taliban tried to argue the point they were signing their own death certificates. Everyone knew that was the case at the time, and because IR is not bound to the legal realm, and because I-law is so shitty, there were going to be consequences.

The US breaks international law from time to time. But we're the international hegemon, so it's not like we're going to suffer any consequences, nor should we. Add to that the fact that the US is a big fan of unilateral action and a big opponent of internationalism and you've got a recipe for kicking ass and taking names.

Agree with you on the US having hegemony, agree with you that the US breaks international law, agree with you that the US wasn't going to suffer any consequences (from states at least, fanning the flames of hatred of the US and terrorism is another matter), and agree with you that international law doesn't mean anything if states aren't treated equally (the US for example).
On the other hand I disagree, as a member of the international community that isn't American, that the US shouldn't suffer consequences for breaking international law (I find it extremely dangerous in that regard). I also disagree that the Taliban's offer of evidence in exchange for evidence was somehow unreasonable. Might is not right, that's the purpose of international law.

I do respect how honest you are about the state of play, however, I'm stunned as to how you can be morally satisfied with the status quo.

Regardless, Afghanistan is better off now than it was under the Taliban.

With respect, that's completely besides the point. It implies that the brutalities of invasion and occupation was the only way to 'improve' the country.

They are still in a better situation regardless. If the US invasion was a "nightmare" for the Afghanistani's. then what was the Taliban rule?

Same thing as I said before, you're implying that military intervention and ten year occupation was the only possible way for regime change. I do wonder though why the US government (uncovered by Wikileaks) would try to cover up civilian casualties? Maybe it's because the destruction of the war is indefensible?

Enlighten me on how you can force a terrorist organization to relinquish control of a country other than military means.

Well of course you would. People don't like other people to be more powerful than them.

It was unreasonable because they weren't ignorant to the situation. The US couldn't compromise on the issue because the administration, more than ever, had to put up a no-nonsense attitude. Expecting any kind of positive response to their offer would be dangerously and unthinkably naive, and you'd have to be willfully ignorant to stake your security on it. Additionally, it was well known that bin Laden was a terrorist at the time. They weren't fooling anyone by asking to see evidence.

The point of I-law is to give certain states leverage over other states. Status quo I-law significantly disadvantages certain countries, in particular members of the 3rd world, and significantly advantages the post-industrial nations. It has not ever existed in a state that balances power or gives weaker states the ability to seriously punish larger states for transgressions. If anything, I-law strengthens the power of the haves, who can ignore it more or less at will, and at the same time forces the have-nots to both adhere to it and have no recourse for grievances. Might still makes right in the status quo: soft power isn't somehow nicer than hard power, it's just different.

For one, I'm an American. It's in my personal interests for America to be able to act with impunity. But there's the additional fact that I'm an IR realist, and I don't like internationalism. While I agree that the US occasionally abuses its status as international hegemon, I think it's far, far better than a system which maintains a strong international governing body. Taking power away from states is atrocious, and entities like the UN are tolerable only because they serve, as I previously stated, as a means to increase the power of certain states.