Could the Taliban have prevented the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan?

[Fire_Unionist]

Very recent history I know, but hopefully we can try to keep current affairs out of it..

In a 20 September 2001 speech, US President Bush issued an ultimatum that the Taliban (and I quote):

1. Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in [Afghanistan].
2. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens [they] have unjustly imprisoned.
3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in [their] country.
4. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

It's probably fair to say that the United States never expected that the Taliban would actually do this....however my question is, could the Taliban have realistically complied with Bush's demands? And would doing so have really prevented war? It's hard to imagine that Bush would simply say "oh, well we have Bin Laden and co....thanks Taliban, the war on terror is over."

 

[Premu]

Very recent history I know, but hopefully we can try to keep current affairs out of it..

In a 20 September 2001 speech, US President Bush issued an ultimatum that the Taliban (and I quote):

1. Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in [Afghanistan].
2. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens [they] have unjustly imprisoned.
3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in [their] country.
4. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

It's probably fair to say that the United States never expected that the Taliban would actually do this....however my question is, could the Taliban have realistically complied with Bush's demands? And would doing so have really prevented war? It's hard to imagine that Bush would simply say "oh, well we have Bin Laden and co....thanks Taliban, the war on terror is over."

In my opinion - no, they couldn't prevent it. While they could theoretically fulfill the first three points, the last two are quite fishy.

I don't think that Bush (or many other Americans) would be satisfied by simply getting Bin-Laden, they wanted to punish all these people behind it. We've also seen that the Bush administration was willing to twist the truth to justify the invasion of Iraq. It would be easy to do the same in Afghanistan - you can easily claim that there are still terrorists hiding or some not mentioned training camps.

Of course, one major flaw could be that we don't know if Bin-Laden was actually hiding in Afghanistan at this time. Perhaps we was in Pakistan already, making it impossible for the Taliban to deliver him.

 

[peter64]

Well I don't know much about background of this, but that ultimatum in OP doesn't leave much room for peaceful solution. Point 4 - who are appropriate authorities? Afghan courts or US govt. agencies? If latter, then why the hell would they agree to that? Point 5 - give US access to wherever the hell they decide they want to go? And as Premu pointed out - for infinite time as they can just keep coming up with new 'camps' they want to see. Sounds like a pretty big violation of Afghan sovereignity tbh.
Even if someone was dumb enough to agree to that he/they would face serious backlash and would likely get ousted/murdered very soon. It seems like a bunch of phrases so that US don't get accused of shooting without asking first.

Edit: Reading my post again; it may seem like I'm ranting. I'm not. I meant it as a more cynical comment. It's kinda hard to get the tone right over internetz and I definitely don't want to start a flamewar or sth

 

[Minodrin]

I think they could have. The problem was that the Taliban probably had an unrealistic view of their ability to defend the country. They probably believed that since they had defeated the Brits in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th, they could defeat the Americans in the 21st.

But if the only other option was war against a far superior enemy, surely giving in to humiliating demands was a better alternative. It wouldn't be the first time in history a nation surrendered in face of overwhelming odds.

 

[Jos de trol]

I think they could have avoided it if they had accepted the ultimatum and provided to put in their "best efforts" and actually show this to be true. they could certainly close camps of foreign nationals being identified by US satellite pictures and allow US tactical teams on site etc.

obviously they would never accept this, but they could have

 

[Fire_Unionist]

I don't know much about the Taliban's internal power dynamics---I was thinking that submission to the ultimatum might have been impossible simply for internal political reasons (the loss of face would undermine the government).

 

[noobermenschen]

I don't know much about the Taliban's internal power dynamics---I was thinking that submission to the ultimatum might have been impossible simply for internal political reasons (the loss of face would undermine the government).

It would have been abject surrender from their point of view - heck, it's not too far from that when you take a "Western" realpolitik view. I don't consider it too much of a caricature to say the Taliban saw themselves on a mission from God and anyone who wasn't a fervent dogmatic Jihadist was a washed out Muslim corrupted by the values of the World ("World" in the Christian sense, meaning the Devil's realm. Not sure if Muslims view it the same way). They not only thought they could win, they still think they can win.

If they had been pragmatic statesmen in any sense of the word, they would have negotiated an end to the civil war instead of bringing in distant foreigners (bin Laden's crew) to fight their neighbors (the Northern Alliance). They should have played Paradox games - Nation/Realm stability is paramount! They also could have made a better effort to get along with their neighbors, especially Iran (do not know what transpired between the two Gumments so am not sure how much of this was Teheran's fault).

Perhaps they even might have realized that supporting terrorism has a much greater cost than any possible benefit, which is a bit of a stretch since those assholes in Islamabad - er, I mean our stalwart Pakistani allies - appear not to have figured that out even today. This brings up another point, the influence of Pakistan, chiefly through the ISI. Were they simply supporters or were they puppet masters? This would no doubt have brought at least some limit to the Taliban's freedom of action even if they had been so inclined to act a little more rationally from our point of view.

 

[Herbert West]

The best you could hope for would be a division along the following lines:
- a pashtu separatist movement
- the ISI controllled destabilizer
- the die-hard jihadists who descend from the nutjobs the saudi exported to Afghanistan

 

[Rey]

Why would the US not take the chance to intervene Afghanistan? The Talibans were recognized by no one, except for 3 countries, as the legitimate government of the country. For the rest they were just a pariah group before 9/11 which often showed up in the news for their barbaric methods (public executions, destruction of the budas, ...). There was just too many people uncomfortable with their activities in the area.

 

[dskod1]

This sounds a lot like another certain ultimatum.... except the people who issued that ultimatum ended up in the losing side.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)

It should be noted that Austria had prepared for a situation where Serbia met with all demands and that was for the ambassador to Serbia to not accept anything from the Serbians regarding the deal no matter how many points, even if it was all of them, they agreed with.

There was most likely a contingency plan if, in the extremely unlikely event, of Taliban agreeing to all the terms. If the Taliban had agreed to all terms wouldn't it have made it harder, if it were America's actual goal, to invade Afghanistan, at least on a diplomatic stand point?

 

[Fire_Unionist]

This sounds a lot like another certain ultimatum.... except the people who issued that ultimatum ended up in the losing side.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)

It should be noted that Austria had prepared for a situation where Serbia met with all demands and that was for the ambassador to Serbia to not accept anything from the Serbians regarding the deal no matter how many points, even if it was all of them, they agreed with.

There was most likely a contingency plan if, in the extremely unlikely event, of Taliban agreeing to all the terms. If the Taliban had agreed to all terms wouldn't it have made it harder, if it were America's actual goal, to invade Afghanistan, at least on a diplomatic stand point?

The ultimatum to Serbia is indeed a comparison that springs to mind, but having said that I think it's fair to say that the US ultimatum was significantly more reasonable than Austria's, in light of the respective "provocations."

 

[peter64]

Depends. Serbia adopted very hostile rhetoric towards AH after 1903 coup and didn't hesitate to mobilize in response to annexation of Bosnia. Also had a history of backing various shady to outright terrorist organizations. Now we know that Princip had received very little actual support from their side, but it wasn't that unreasonable to assume that they were behind it. Either way any sovereign state worthy of this name (heck even a bunch of warlords) would have issues with foreigners coming in to do their 'investigations'. Sending it as an ultimatum, which is by definition non-negotiable, is pretty much saying 'Ok guys we just need to get through these formalities and then we'll start shooting. Good luck.'

 

[dskod1]

exactly the point I am attempting to make peter.

Of course the Austria-Hungary Serbian ultimatum is much more harsh in the terms to be met as stated by fire_unionist

 

[magritte2]

exactly the point I am attempting to make peter.

Of course the Austria-Hungary Serbian ultimatum is much more harsh in the terms to be met as stated by fire_unionist

I don't agree. What criteria would distinguish "terrorist training facilities" from military training facilities? And even if acceptable criteria could be established, I doubt the Taliban could have closed such facilities without a civil war. The fifth point would have required an American military occupation of the country to accomplish.

 

[Zzzzz...]

Doubt it. USA post-9/11 just wants to bomb some Muslim countries. They are willing to dive into Iraq so eagerly to show that someone has to pay for 9/11 by blood. What makes you think they'll just pat the Taliban's back and say "well done! Thank you for cooperating" and just leave them alone?

 

[dskod1]

I don't agree. What criteria would distinguish "terrorist training facilities" from military training facilities? And even if acceptable criteria could be established, I doubt the Taliban could have closed such facilities without a civil war. The fifth point would have required an American military occupation of the country to accomplish.

I am actually confused about what you don't agree with when you quoted my post? Because you go on to agree with my original point that the ultimatum given by USA was actually designed to ensure a war no matter what rpely was given. Hence why I referenced back to WW1 ultimatum

 

[eleinvisible]

Maybe. But even if they had agreed, the US and Iran would still have supported the other groups fighting for control to such an extent that the Taliban would be removed from power.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Let´s see this from the Taliban point of view.

1. Osama and his henchmen were the Taliban guests. People take guest rights very seriously in that part of world.

2. The Talibans probably saw US as morally weak and decadent nation. They would not deliver their religious brothers to the hands of infidels.

3. The Talibans probably expected a missile strike like US did in 1998. They didn´t expect that US would be able to build a coalition and invade Afghanistan. They probably assumed that they were able to drive Soviet troops out so the prospect of a protracted guerrilla war make a full scale invasion against them impossible.

 

[The Super Pope]

5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

This point particularly reminds of the Austrian ultimatum.
I think the fact is that even if the Taliban wanted rid of Bin Laden, and they were probably under no illusions as to what America's response would be, the Taliban state was simply not capable of removing Al Qaeda. As with most Afghan governments, the Taliban's control outside of Kabul was limited. Outside of Pashtun areas it was non-existent, in the south it was reliant on tribal leaders co-operating.

 

[Barsoom]

I think they could have. The problem was that the Taliban probably had an unrealistic view of their ability to defend the country. They probably believed that since they had defeated the Brits in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th, they could defeat the Americans in the 21st.

Isn't that what they're doing? The likely outcome after 15 years or so is that the Americans are out and the Taliban back in.