Why are US troops in Afghanistan?

[undeterred]

[babylonsister]

1. Pre- or post- idiot son? nt

[undeterred]

2. What's our excuse NOW?

[babylonsister]

14. Good point. I wish the reasoning would be explained, and what this

admin hopes to accomplish. I'm not at all happy about what's going on.

[undeterred]

17. Feingold is asking Obama to set a strategy.

The cover story is going to be Al Quaeda, as always. But we shouldn't stay there just because a wrongheaded president put us there.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Top_Senate_Democrat_questions_Obama_Afghanistan_0218.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. They're searching for the "light at the end of the tunnel". ,,again.

[MADem]

4. The only oil in Afghanistan is imported cooking oil, in tin cans, mostly. NT

[baldguy]

7. Not oil - natural gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

[MADem]

15. I know, but apparently a lot of people here think there's oil in Afghanistan, based

on their responses...unless they're being ironic in an excessively oblique fashion.

[Monk06]

39. It's about oil and NG. Karzai was employed by UNICOL before he

was enlisted to become the President
of Afghanistan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0610/p01s03e-wosc.html

[MADem]

53. UNOCAL...? Do they have a piece of Uzbeki oil production?

It would explain the comments in this piece, anyway: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=119368&d=19&m=2&y=2009

“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian,” said Dick Cheney in a speech to oil moguls in 1998. In the same year, John Maresca, vice president of international relations of Unocal Corporation, commented before a House committee in February 2008 on ways to transfer Caspian basin oil (estimated between 110 to 243 billion barrels of crude, worth up to $4 trillion): “(One) option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan.”



However, Putin's puppet might have something to say about that....or he may want in on the deal.

[Monk06]

62. Wiki on Unocal ......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal

Karzai and Unocal were part of an
attempt to build a pipeline to the
Caspian and to Southern Pakistan
in order to by pass Russian Pipelines
in the region.

You don't necessarily need to own the
oil in order to manipulate supply.

All you have to do is control distribution.

[readmoreoften]

63. Except for that pipeline my friend who's now in the IVAW guarded for 3 weeks.

His joke is "Wow, for three weeks I was on duty watching a pipeline that supposedly doesn't exist. Now that would be a REAL waste of taxpayer money.

[MADem]

69. Wasn't that NG, though? Or was it a not-yet-used oil one? nt

[Bucky]

5. Getting bin Laden really should be on this poll. That's not just "other"

It's the most important thing. The Taliban hosted and protected the guy who bankrolled the murder of 3000 people. The war's not over until that asshole is dead or locked up for life.

[undeterred]

11. Except nobody really thinks he's in Afghanistan, if he's even alive.

If that were the real reason for the occupation, we would have captured and brought him to justice years ago.

[babylonsister]

16. Duh, different admin, and that was Obama's goal.

And I'd like to see a link letting me know where OBL is. I'll send it to President Obama.

[undeterred]

20. There seems to be a consensus that he is in Pakistan.

If he is alive, that is.

[Bucky]

23. I'm trying to imagine bin Laden being dead and Bush not taking credit for it

Alas, my imagination is limited by reality.

[babylonsister]

26. No kidding. nt

[Bucky]

22. Undeterred is right that bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan. He's in Pakistan.

But the reason he's in Pakistan is because our troops are in Afghanistan. Pulling them out would be dumb.

Look, I don't for a second think that the troops there have been put to the wisest or most urgent tasks. The gas pipelines planned for Afghanistan has a lot to do with why we're there and why Bush never really prioritized that conflict. But the real reason to be there remains that bin Laden's allies in the Taliban are there, are nuts, and continue to plot to turn the region into a 13th Century enclave of religious insanity.

[babylonsister]

24. I just wonder how many Taliban are there, and could we ever

make the world safer by defeating them? How? I don't have any answers.

I just keep thinking about Russia...10 years it took.

[undeterred]

29. Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires n/t

[Bucky]

32. It's not a finite number. In WW2 the allies killed only a fraction of the nazis

Obama seems to get the reality that military power can hold off Taliban advances, but actually defeating their cause will take creating viable and attractive economic and social alternatives that can create hope & stability in the communities where that cancer has been thriving (thanks largely to Bush & his friends). We win by building a stable Afghanistan and making peace & economic integration with the rest of the world more attractive that the reactionary Taliban's alternative. When the people leave them, they'll lose.

Nation-building is troublesome, but there's really not a viable alternative and it can certainly be a net force for good in the world.

[babylonsister]

36. Thoughtful post, thanks. But who does this sound like?

Substitute Iraq for Afghanistan: "We win by building a stable Afghanistan and making peace & economic integration with the rest of the world more attractive that the reactionary Taliban's alternative."

I'm so confused, but I'm sick of war, too.

I like Brzezinski's solution tonight. Consult with other countries, and let's iron something out. Or not. But I can handle reason collectively.

[Bucky]

38. We agree on the "sick of war" part. We agree with Patton, Sherman, Ike, Washington...

I know that if you sub Iraq for Afghanistan the quote sounds like Bush. But that's only a cogent argument if you believe there's any significant relationship between what Bush says and what his real policies were. Iraq and Afghanistan simply never were and never will be parallel situations. Despite its internal cruelties, Iraq was a stable nation and successfully contained threat to regional stability. There was no need for war. Afghanistan's core problem was its instability, isolation, and regional aggression through terrorist proxies like bin Laden.

Afghanistan needs to be stabilized before it tears Pakistan apart (google Swat Valley for some unpleasant harbingers). Iraq only needed to stabilized after Bush turned it into terrorist central and motivated an additional 10 million Muslims to hate America.

[babylonsister]

41. Should we be the ones to stabilize Afghanistan when

after 10 years of strife, death, fight, money, Russia has proved it's not doable?

I'm sick of war.

[Bucky]

44. Well, I think the US Army, even under Bush, is quite different from the Soviets

The reason it's us is that we are the ones who benefit from globalization the most. It then logically falls on us when the effects of globalization do so much to tear apart nations that live outside the fringes of globalization. We benifit anyway, so we owe it to them. Now I know some people disagree with globalization, but I see that as being like disagreeing with the rain. The ground's gonna get wet no matter how you feel. Globalization is a fact, not a policy. The only question is does the most powerful country in the world use its power to ease the transition of disconnected quarters of the world into the global economy and make life better for those who might otherwise suffer, or do you just rely on the unregulated fact of global economic forces to just make everything okay in the long run.

Mr Bush's policy was to just see what happens when you ignore your responsibilities in the world. It didn't work out too good. In the 21st century, every country is our neighbor and right now Afghanistan's house is on fire. I think we have a responsibility to help them out. I know failing to do so will lead to more people getting killed.

[EFerrari]

48. There's two different groups of Taliban. One is Afghani and one is Pakistani.

They communicate somewhat but they're different people with different goals -- to control territory in their respective areas.

There is no real way to defeat them militarily unless we nuke both countries. The solution has to be a political one.

[undeterred]

28. Bingo.

And I think there is a lot that we don't know. Pakistan is not really our ally in this- well, the leaders may be, but people in the military are not. Afghanistan may just be a staging area for the US getting into Pakistan.

But I have to think there are other reasons we have a military presence there that have nothing to do with terrorism. Our venture into Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, despite the cover story we were expected to believe. We stirred up terrorism by going there. In this day and age we never go to war for one simple reason, and we never do it without serving the interests of corporate greed.

[eridani]

50. So, in the 80s we were apparently there to fund and arm fundy whackjobs

--so that they could bring down a secular Soviet-backed government that was making girls go to school. Your tax dollars paid US universities to design and print pro-jihadi textbooks. This was all about who gets to dominate the region. It still is, even though we've switched sides. Our allies are now the Northern Alliance warlords who had previously sided with the Soviets. They are every bit as religiously crazy as the Taliban--less puritanical, but more corrupt.

What we are doing there is waging an air war on civilians, and nothing empowers the religiously reactionary, misogynist and xenophobic elements of a society like being constantly attacked. When we were attacked, Bush had a 90% approval rating. Why would you think the people of Afghanistan would be any different?

Why not just stop fucking with other people? What would Iran be like if its secular nationalist government had not been overthrown in 1953? The Brits and the US used the fundie mullah whackjobs in that effort also. The whole area might have been more modern and secular without our intervention. We should just butt out, period.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. Please,

we can't have rational people here.

OK, I would have thought that would have been one of the choices too.

[rgbecker]

13. And what makes you so sure Bin Laden is not already got?

Many think he is no longer and the poor ol' USA can't prove it one way or the other! Don't bother mentioning the "tapes", as if you couldn't make up one yourself. Read the reports from 2002. He was dying of liver/kidney trouble 7 years ago for goodness sakes.

[Bucky]

18. If they already "got" bin Laden, Bush would've been crowing about it

When have the neocons ever passed up a chance to brag about any of their meager accomplishments?

Tinfoilery aside, bin Laden's references to more recent events demonstrate either he lived past 2002 or was remarkably clairvoyant.

[rebecca_herman]

43. Assumption would be he died of natural causes

I haven't seen any proof either way but most people who think he may be dead theorize that he died of natural causes and the death was kept hidden by those who saw it. *Shrug* I haven't seen proof either way.

[eridani]

51. Not if it was just a reasonable guess with no concrete proof

Which is pretty much the case.

[baldguy]

37. You're forgetting about the guy who first recruited him & trained him

& introduced him to the Taliban - Ronald Reagan's chief spook, Bill Casey.

[roody]

66. He's been dead for awhile,

[Why Syzygy]

6. Opium is far more profitable than oil. nt

[MADem]

19. And heroin more profitable than opium.

Of course, they do a very good regional business in hashish, as well.

[defendandprotect]

35. Which is why it seems quite clear that the drug trade goes on ONLY . . .

with the full cooperation of high elected officials ---

It can't happen without corrupt officials and corrupt police enforcement --

There has long been a rumor that there are high officials in charge of the drug

traffic and that they did so because they recognized that it is like gold and

the power of that money could be a threat. Some say there is a document signed

by a few of them -- Kissinger is one name I recall.

[Why Syzygy]

40. We think alike..

There should be more like us :rofl:

Of course it is corrupt all the way through. It's been awhile since reading, but there are tracks directly back to Jeb. I don't know anything about the BCCI, but there may be links there as well. Politicians are the guiltiest crooks on the planet.

Plus, I actually read a current article claiming that we had to save IRAN from the "awful" drugs coming from Afghanistan! They will say anything. But, true intent showed through that trial balloon. It's about the Drugs. More specifically, the profits. With over populated prisons being a side dish. The 'drug war' is nothing more than a tool against the Poor.

[undeterred]

55. Saving Iran from the drugs coming from Afghanistan

is about as believable as bringing equality for women and democracy for all.

[Why Syzygy]

58. Doesn't it just gall to be thought of as STUPID?

I know. lol . I thought you were saying .. about as believable as bringing equity... as in the financial scams they lie about. Stop with the Lies already!

[defendandprotect]

67. As long as they can use it to raise FEARS ...

of other countries -- Mexico! -- Iran! ---

and the fears of parents that their kids will get caught up in it ---

then they have us.

Meanwhile, kids at any age, are more at risk from this phony Drug War than they

are from marijuana. We have to treat drug addition as a health issue -- not crime.

How in hell are we going to overturn this --- ?

In fact, everything is so corrupt now, there are almost no honest threads left to pull!!

[rgbecker]

8. Great Job Undeterred......

You have obviously put more thought into why we are there than all at the CIA, DOD, and entire
Bush administration put together. I pray for the young boys who have signed up for this bullshit and tell them to think again and get out now. Obama! WTF? Which one of these reasons make all the killing worth it?

[tekisui]

9. To lose a war.

[Adsos Letter]

10. To add a client-state for our foreign policy....

not that it's working...

[marylanddem]

21. I have no fucking idea. I think we need to bail. It is stupid.

We are not going to deter another terrorist attack this way. It is a huge waste of money and blood.

[Quantess]

25. I answered C

Maybe I'm just naiive, but, if we really are trying to stop Al Qaeda, then Afghanistan is a better choice than Iraq. But it's just my marginally informed guess.

[Arctic Dave]

27. Dog and Pony Show? Snipe Hunt? Boondoggle? ClusterF**k?

All of the above?

[Turborama]

30. I've gone to great lengths to explain why I think we're still there...

...here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3744341

[Mari333]

31. anyone who supports this fucking occupation

should be willing to
support a draft
send their own kids
send themselves
otherwise they should just stfu.
sick of warmongering armchair chickenhawks willing to send our kids to this fucking bullshit.

[superduperfarleft]

59. Exactly. n/t

[OhioChick]

33. At this point....who the hell knows?

:shrug:

Seems fiscally irresponsible to be damn near in a Depression and have several wars going on.

[defendandprotect]

34. Good poll -- I voted OIL, but also my vote would be for Opium . . . .

and loved it that you included helping females in Afghanistan !!!!

This and Iraq still look like Christian Crusades against Muslims and presume

civilian deaths are now over 200,000????

Nice job -- !!


PS: Hard to believe that 12 responders think we're there to defeat Taliban --

which US/CIA created -- !!!

[Why Syzygy]

47. There's a lot of misinformation about the role of the Taliban.

Of course disinformation was by design from the prior *leadership*.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4948683&mesg_id=4954319

What everyone is calling "tribes" are nations in the eyes of most of the people who live there-- Afghanistan is an arbitrary collective of ethnic groups pulled together unwillingly under a nation-state. Taliban is simply a word that refers to they who study the Koran devotedly and literally, but it has become an empowered force to reckon with, thanks to our sloppy and deliberate covert activities based on greed, imperial desire, and meddling in others' business. The idea that bombardment from the air somehow extinguishes a people's passion is not only absurd but proven wrong. And the idea that one could ever fight a war on something as vague as "terror" is even more twisted than trying to fight a war on "drugs." Both are poorly-defined concepts, when, in the case of the former GWB was referring actually to resistance fighters who resorted to criminal means like attacking the WTC; or, in the case of Ronald Reagan, when he was actually not referring to drugs themselves but to their channels of distribution and those who abused them.
~snipped

VERY good read @ RS:

How We Lost the War We Won
A journey into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan

NIR ROSEN Oct 30, 2008 9:19 AM

As we drive away, Ibrahim laughs. The soldiers, he explains, thought I was a suicide bomber. Ibrahim did not bother to tell them that he and Shafiq are midlevel Taliban commanders, escorting me deep into Ghazni, a province largely controlled by the spreading insurgency that now dominates much of the country.

Until recently, Ghazni, like much of central Afghanistan, was considered reasonably safe. But now the province, located 100 miles south of the capital, has fallen to the Taliban. Foreigners who venture to Ghazni often wind up kidnapped or killed. In defiance of the central government, the Taliban governor in the province issues separate ID cards and passports for the Taliban regime, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Farmers increasingly turn to the Taliban, not the American-backed authorities, for adjudication of land disputes.
~snipped

More on the role of opium:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/01/as-he.html

[bobthedrummer]

42. It's not why, but they are killing many civilians-and fueling hatred of Americans

as I said tht's not why, it is the situation there and in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
:cry:

[Mr. Hyde]

45. so we can say "we won" basically.

[leftstreet]

46. Pipelines, Drugs, Arms Sales, Client-State for US Imperialism, MICC

stuff like that there

[readmoreoften]

65. You forgot for "honor", "dignity", and "freedom", and "the American way..."

and "fightin' terrorists"

:rofl:

[smalll]

49. Honestly - why are they there now -- why are we sending more? -- Campaign-season TRIANGULATION.

Obama was anti-Iraq War over the past year or two to get the Democratic left on his side (or at least to drive a wedge between them and Hillary.)

Relatedly, he was PRO Afghanistan War to re-assure moderates and conservatives that he wasn't a total pushover dove and/or Jeremiah Wright-style America-hater.

So what he's done is locked himself into trying to win the most unwinnable wars of all (a war in Afghanistan - just ask Alexander the Great, the Soviets, the Brits.)

You think Iraq was hopeless? You ain't seen nothing yet!

[Maru Kitteh]

52. Conveniently facile revenge.

[undeterred]

54. Revenge against who?

What did the people of Afghanistan ever do to us?

[donco]

56. It must be because we want to keep an eye on Pakistan…wait,

that’s why were in Pakistan to keep an eye on Afghanistan, geez. :wtf:

[DireStrike]

57. To "control" opium production

If you know what I mean.

[Fireweed247]

60. because that bastard McCain won't tell us where bin laden is

or maybe because the powers that be are trying to drive us even further into debt to ensure the final ruin of the US and the rise of China as the new elite super power playground. Maybe we should ask Russia how it worked out for them?

[Occam Bandage]

61. What oil? nt

[readmoreoften]

64. To ensure the opium trade continues and to get the oil.

The answer is not "control" the opium production, if by control you mean stop production. We dislike the Taliban because they halted opium production, which is in part why we're backing the warlords.

The Taliban are not international terrorists. They may have "harbored" a terrorist, but they are not terrorists. The war is ridiculous and anyone who thinks we're there to 'get terrorists' is off their cake.

[treestar]

68. Because of 911 we chose to strike back at somebody

And this country was the closest we could come to a legitimate target of revenge.

We should just get out and look for Osama and Al Qaeda the same way Clinton was.