I have yet to fully understand how Afghanistan became the "good war" in the eyes of the West. Al-Qaida is in Pakistan. The Taliban didn't plan, participate in, or have any advanced knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
After the attacks, the Taliban's response to American demands to hand over al-Qaida leaders was a rather reasonable request to see the evidence implicating al-Qaida. The United States refused to present to the Taliban whatever compelling evidence it had against Osama bin Laden. It didn't even seek extradition. The U.S. ultimatum: Hand over bin Laden or we start bombing. Since then, al-Qaida and the Taliban have been generally viewed as one and the same by the Western media, and any Afghan resisting the foreign military presence in the country is automatically labeled a member of the Taliban and/or a terrorist.
Therefore, is not any of the violence against NATO troops in Afghanistan legitimate? Consider the parent of a child killed by foreign military forces, for instance. Would he or she not be justified in taking up arms against NATO troops? What about an Afghan who simply despises living under military occupation? Doesn't he have a right to resist?
When asked about the American Civil War, writer Shelby Foote liked to recount the following anecdote: Early in the conflict, a squad of Union soldiers closed in on a ragged Rebel soldier. Figuring that he did not own slaves, or have much interest in the constitutional question of secession, they asked him: "What are you fighting for anyhow?" The Confederate replied: "I'm fighting because you're down here." Foote regarded that as "a pretty satisfactory answer."
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.