What is the war in Afghanistan for?

[IndianaGreen]

Our cousins across the pond are pondering this very question, as should we. Here is The Independent's take on this:

Leading article: Let this operation be the last

Sunday, 14 February 2010

What, we must ask again, is this war for? There is an alarming familiarity about the objectives of the offensive launched by American-led forces in Afghanistan on Friday night. Clear, hold and build has been the basic template, ever since our attention turned back to Afghanistan from the disastrous distraction of Iraq. Seven years on, it has not worked, and it is a definition of folly to repeat an action and expect a different result.

Let us be clear. This newspaper supported the use of military force against the Taliban regime when it refused to surrender Osama bin Laden in 2001 – in contrast to our view of the invasion of Iraq 17 months later. We even supported Tony Blair in his promise to the Afghan people that Britain would stand by them for the long haul. The issue now is whether standing by the people of Afghanistan requires a greater military presence in the country, or whether the "soft power" of development assistance or even straight bribery might be more effective.

We concluded, on Remembrance Sunday last year, that it was time to scale back our ambitions in Afghanistan and to begin to bring British troops home. We argued that the best way of fulfilling our obligations to the Afghan people was to promote political dialogue and economic reconstruction. Plainly security is important, but our role should be focused on training and supporting Afghan forces while reducing our soldiers' front-line role in their policing.

As for war-fighting, that has come over several years to resemble "mowing the grass", in the common Army phrase. The Independent on Sunday was the first and only British newspaper to call for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, and none of the arguments advanced by rival newspapers (when they have addressed the issue at all) or by the Government, or by either of the main opposition parties, has come close to a compelling rationale for the opposing case.

Indeed, everything about the selling of Operation Moshtarak adds to our doubts about the wisdom of the strategy. As Patrick Cockburn writes today, the offensive seems to be designed for ready consumption by the US media. The very language of offensive, stronghold and the seizing of territory seems inappropriate to describe a military action against guerrilla forces. It seems likely to lead up to a set-piece "victory", after which Western attention will subside and the Taliban will trickle back.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-let-this-operation-be-the-last-1898861.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Don't ask me I don't give a damn

next stop is kabukistan

[zulchzulu]

2. TAPI pipeline and some money from the heroin trade to launder money and...

...a great place to test out new military technologies on brown people, who serve as more actionable evidence than lab rats or computer models.

It also helps having the ability to support a narco-kleptocracy and have a nice military location near Iran for the next attacks.

Easy peazy!

[Loge23]

4. ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

Very succinctly said, zz!

This is an exercise designed solely for perpetuating the military/industrial complex.
It's easy to make up some lie about national security or going after "bad guys".
There will always be a sizable population in the U.S. that will belive anything they tell us.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. so who is actually deciding this?

this has been an ongoing thing for decades

[peacebird]

3. I heard on NPR today that we are trying to convince the locals that it will be different this time..

That *this* time we will not only 'clear' but 'clear, hold, and STAY' - so please trust us and turn on the taliban....
Oh and you evil doers in the taliban, we'ld like to wlecome some of you back into the fold.

:eyes:

at this late date who in their right mind in Afghanistan would believe anything we say? I mean, really? Like we have ANY credibility there?

[wroberts189]

8. And they already screwed that one up.....

NATO: Rockets Miss Target, Kill 12 Afghan Civilians During Marjah Offensive

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/14/nato-rockets-miss-target_n_461831.html

[Vidar]

6. Profits for a precious few. Misery fo millions.

[rug]

7. So the President could keep a campaign promise.

[johnaries]

9. So, what then? 9/11 was MIHOP? al Qaeda had nothing to do

with it? Instead of just being incompetent, the Bush Admin were actually evil geniuses? al Qaeda was totally innocent? The Taliban did not harbor them, but instead were benevolent rulers? The fact that Bush basically ignored Afghanistan to go after Iraq makes no difference? Afghan warlords don't really exist? The fact that when we helped Afghanistan defeat the Soviets and then just left them with a devastated land and no help had nothing to do with the rise of the Taliban and the warlords?

You know, I really hate it when the RW tries to re-write history. But I hate it even more when Progressives do it - because we're supposed to know better!

[zulchzulu]

10. What a better way to make Al Qaeda stronger than to give them a perfect marketing tool

Al Qaeda, according to many intelligence reports, has less than 100 "agents" in Afghanistan now. They are (if you believe all this bullshit) in very treacherous locations in Pakistan.

Attacking the Taliban (who we have supported since the 1980s with Bin Laden) and thinking that working with the Karzai narco-kleptocracy is going to come to any good is a farce.

Do some homework on the situation. Katie Couric talking points are amusing and even cute in their ignorance, but there is a lot more going on than most people could even comprehend.

For an American soldier to die in Afghanistan is a tragedy beyond words.

I would invite you to refute ANYTHING in this post about the matter:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/372

[johnaries]

14. Actually, you should do your homework. The abuses we did in

Iraq during the Bush administration was the "marketing tool" (actually a recruiting tool). Obama has eliminated those. Many of the Afghans under Taliban control are so simply because the Taliban has threatened them or kidnapped one of their relatives. The new "push" is to liberate and recruit those people to our side.

Yes, most of al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan which is why we are doing drone attacks there. But, if we simply leave Afghanistan now the Taliban and al Qaeda will return and we'll be right back to where we were on 9/11.

It is true that Karzhai is corrupt, which is why we were so disappointed when he basically "stole" the recent election. However, we cannot prove it and the only way to remove Karzhai at this point would be a coup. Which means we would have to start all over again.

As for the TAPI pipeline, yes, I know all about it. But to claim that it was the reason for the war is to ignore all the other events and to say that 9/11 was actually MIHOP. It is a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory. ASk yourself this, if the TAPI pipeline was the real reason for the Afghan war, then why did Bush basically ignore Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq? He wouldn't have. He would have continued to press in Afghanistan untill the pipeline was finished. this theory doesn't pass the "smell" test.

Yes, there is a lot more going on than most people comprehend. And you obviously don't comprehend it, either or you wouldn't encourage conspiracy theories that ignore reality and actual events.

[zulchzulu]

17. Ferchrissakes, do you think the Taliban want Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

When the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to set up training camps and tolerated them in Afghanistan, they were completely decimated by the US in 2002.

Do you really think they want these outsiders in their country now?

As for Bush and TAPI vs. Iraq and the second largest oil fields in the World, of course he went for Iraq. Did you know that Halliburton had tried to set up the TAPI pipeline in the 1990's?

Lumping basic facts about Afghanistan with the MIHOP story is your cute attempt to try to make people think that if you question the Afghanistan War, why damn it, you're a conspiracy theory nut. Real fuckin' cute, sport.

You have a sub-level pedestrian opinion on the situation in Afghanistan... it's quite amusing.

[eridani]

11. The Afghan warlords are our allies, and control the Karzai government

So what if Afghanistan was one of the dozens of countries harboring Al Qaeda? We didn't invade any of the others.

[johnaries]

13. Obviously, you know nothing about the Afghan warlords.

And Afghanistan was the headquarters and training camp for al Qaeda. As far as the other countries are concerned they are cooperating with us, unlike the Taliban.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Who is cooperating with us? Where is bin laden? 9 years.

The Pakistanis play a good game, not as good as the Saudis, but a pretty good game. If everyone except the Taliban is cooperating with us, where the fuck is Osama bin Laden? Has it even crossed your mind that perhaps things are not quite what you are being told they are?

The government that flat out lied about Iraq is being square with us now about everything else, and hasn't been pumping out bullshit on an industrial scale for at least the last 50 years?

[johnaries]

16. Duh, bin Laden was protected by the Taliban. You made my point

for me. And this is NOT the same government that lied to us about Iraq. WE voted in a new government, remember that whole thing back in November 2008? And please don't give me that tired old "Obama=Bush" bullshit because that has been debunked over and over again.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Duh - the taliban have been in no position to protect anyone for 9 years.

My point went right over your head.

[eridani]

19. You sure it wasn't the flight schools in America?

You know, the ones where a number of suspicious characters wanted to learn to fly but not to land. Quite a few of the warlords are on our side, supposedly. Drug dealers run Karzai's government.

[Sancho]

12. 40 years ago I would have never said this...

Our government can always find a target to attack that they "justify". Since WWII, I'm convinced we've had an out of control military that uses war for practice, weapon development, and to make millions for those who profit. If it was not Iraq or Afghanistan it would be somewhere else. I'm also convinced that a woman President would be less likely to go to war. Maybe I'll live to see the US at peace, and spending as much on education and health care as the military. Looks pretty grim right now.

[indepat]

26. Sadly, a woman president would have to have the balls to demonstrate she is not soft on

terra, communism, drugs, and crime and is not weak on national defense, so here we would go again, same song, different verse. :P

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Circumstantial evidence suggests that is the case

Female heads of government have actually been more likely to use military force and the most plausible explanation seems to be the one you've stated above.

Granted there have been so few female heads of government that there might simply not be enough data.

[jeanpalmer]

18. When the MIC can fool "Democrats"

into justifying war in Afghanistan, there's no hope. Wasting a $trillion a year, 40% of our tax revenue, on war is insane. And these same people piss and moan about not having health care, or try to justify a pricey mandate scam. Holy shit, how can some Democrats be this fk stupid. It's clear this predicament will never change under the current regime and its supporters.

[polichick]

24. +1

[change_notfinetuning]

20. War is peace. This proves we are a peace-loving nation. n/t

[paulk]

22. well, a big part of it is to keep the money flowing to the

military industrial complex that runs our country.

There's a lot of money to be made in nation building...

The official argument is to ensure that Afghanistan doesn't become another haven for transnational terrorism by helping to stabilize the government there. I could have bought that back when we first invaded, but at this point it seems we're just throwing money (and lives) down a rathole - money that, given the desperate state of our economy, we don't have.

[GeorgeGist]

23. Vengeance ...

priceless.

[asdjrocky]

25. It's a profit thing.

Just like all wars. The poor fight each other for the rich.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. It's about politics

Eisenhower called Truman soft on Communism and so began the vicious cycle of Presidents, particularly Democratic Presidents, having to prove their "toughness". Obama fears that if he loses Afghanistan he will be called weak and lose the next election because of it.