Afghanistan War: Just What Was the Point?

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35403-afghanistan-war-just-what-was-the-point
=
For about three years, there was intense focus. First came the surge. Up to 100,000 U.S. troops (as part of a NATO force) at one point, pressing into the darkest Taliban valleys. Holding ground -- spending millions every month to maintain a presence in tiny dusty villages in faraway places like Kandahar to show the insurgency the U.S. had the resolve.But it was never going to last. In fact, that was always an advertised part of the plan: the U.S. and NATO would hold the land for a few years -- until they thought the Afghan troops were ready -- and then they would pull out. The Taliban had to hope the Afghans wouldn't be ready, and just wait. It seems they did.

Secondly, came the budgets: $110 billion spent in the largest reconstruction effort in U.S. history. Some new roads that made life in some towns viable again, but also buildings that always stood empty, and an injection of cash into Kabul so unrealistic, unprecedented and absurd that the cost of living became almost reckless.

At one point the World Bank suggested more than 90% of Afghanistan's total budget was aid-dependent. (I got a very quick call from the U.S. Embassy telling me this wasn't true -- no alternative figure was offered). Housing for Afghans became more expensive -- some rents have now dropped by almost half. From behind the concrete blast walls where foreigners mainly lived, a (small) can of black market Heineken at one point cost $10. America had no shortage of cash, just a shortage of viable ways to spend it, resulting in some daft projects and a brief pocket of total imbalance in the Afghan economy.

<snip>

According to the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR -- the U.S. government's money watchdog there), the Taliban hold more territory now than at any time since 2001. There are about 10,000 U.S. troops left, who can hunt extremists, but not hold territory.

And it seems neither can the Afghan army at times. It is losing fast in Helmand. It lost Kunduz temporarily in October. If you suggested either of these losses were remotely possible two years ago, most NATO advisors would accuse you of mild insanity.

In terms of Western goals -- things are right back where they started: needing to keep Afghanistan free of extremists and a viable country for its people. Without that the result is thousands of refugees in Europe, and ISIS gets a new safe haven. What is left is a country where the West is discredited as unwilling to stay the course; where most fighters are meaner, better armed, and more chaotic than they were in 2001; and whose name causes opinion-formers in the West to try and change the subject

[Javaman]

1. to make money for the MIC. does the author really need that pointed out? nt

[gratuitous]

3. Indeed - Halliburton was in bad financial shape

And Dick Cheney's deferred compensation package was in danger. But, a couple of years later, a bunch of soldiers electrocuted in their showers, and a bunch more poisoned from the burn pits, and the world is once again safe for Dick Cheney's pension. Hallelujah.

[malthaussen]

2. Lashing out due to impotence.

That's the appeal to Joe Sixpack. To the ruling class, business as usual. Lots of profit in open-ended war.

-- Mal