I ask for you help in my on-going attempt to understand why we are in Afghanistan

[ThomWV]

The other night I was watching some news-cast on the TV and as a bunch of GI's in full modern battle gear waked down a road, through a village, along with everyday Afghans. The voice in the background explained something about our new policy of integrating with the people, indeed living in their midst. So if I'm reading this correctly we are we in Afghanistan to act as a substitute for a non-existant national police force. This makes sense in one context.

Is it our purpose there to make sure that people we have already run out of the country can't return with our intention there to simply maintain a barrier composed of the bodies of US troops along the border for as long as it takes for either our unmanned war machinery to kill all of our enemies (one presumes that would take a while) or our political leaders to bribe Pakistan's to do it for us.

I am open to other versions of why we are there.

[notadmblnd]

Because we wanted to control the flow of oil out of the region.

That and Bin Laden took credit for 9/11 which gave our arrogant government an excuse to make a grab for it.

[peacebird]

1. we screwed up so badly that we can't leave now or evil people will take over

and come kill us all.... :sarcasm:

but actually i think that is partly what the military thinks. That the place is a cesspool of anti-american sentiment, and we can't afford to leave it that way.

I personally do not believe we can "win" in Afghanistan now, &
I think we should pull out.

[BeFree]

36. China and Russia

Are the countries most worried about the spread of the Taliban. They are the neighbors in the region with the most to lose. India too.

Take the long view of the situation encompassing decades and you'll see that it appears the US are surrogate soldiers meant to keep the peace and kill the Talibanism. None of the players in the region could do it without starting civil wars. Russia proved that.

So, being that we're so indebted to China, and Russia is the major oil supplier, it makes sense that they hired us to eliminate a problem they could not handle without destroying themselves (the regimes).

Take the long view......

[panader0]

2. I can't help you-------- I don't understand either

Pipeline? Look tough? Placate hawks?
I still maintain that any "police-ing" of the region could be done without ground troops.

[mmonk]

3. Pipeline construction in 2010.

http://americancommentary.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/where-the-u-s-military-meets-frankenstens-monster-at-the-grave-yard-of-conquerors-obamas-afghan-decision/

http://americancommentary.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/more-on-the-obama-afghanistan-decision-and-the-escalationwithdrawal-double-speak/

[Parker CA]

6. Great links, thank you!

[mmonk]

7. You're welcome.

I gather the 2011 date given as possible for troop reduction is that they may expect the construction to possibly be complete and protection of the infrastructure of it they think might can be maintained with less troops and Afghan government troops.

[Parker CA]

10. Perhaps. I was wondering what happens when agreements dissolve again while we're

so heavily invested with man and machine power? Is there another event, this time to justify bombing the Taliban into absolute oblivion in order to keep plans on track?

Seems like the pieces are in place and that the objective will find a way of being met by whatever means are deemed necessary. I see no clear path at this point, and certainly no path without enormous additional fatalities.

[mmonk]

18. I don't know. It seems to me peace would have to be achieved

with the Pashtuns. Since the Pashtun areas are on both sides of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border along the pipeline route and is where the troop surge and the drone operations are, that would seem to have to be the path.

[truedelphi]

17. May I add my thanks as well. n/t

[mmonk]

19. Of course.

Thanks.

[Greyhound]

30. The one and only reason right there.

Can we elect a leader next time?

[timeforpeace]

4. A lot of the bad guys did actually go to fight us in Iraq and thus never came back so it should be a

little safer. As to why, someone wants to have a war win on his resume. You get that, right?

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I wonder if that "Mission Accomplished" banner is still available?

[ThomWV]

9. They ought to fly a jet and wave that banner all over the world then bring our troops home.

[ThomWV]

8. It was like discovering there was no Santa Claus

It may indeed be as simple as that in the end - someone gets to take credit for a win. The thing is, the only way you can take credit for a win is to come home victorious. At least I think that's the only way.

By the way, and I don't know if I might post this some time in the future or not, but it seems to me that the pipeline reason never made any sense. What do we care about a pipeline? There isn't enough profit in just running one, the thing would transport gas, not oil - and we have plenty of gas and never have got our gas from that part of the world anyway. Just never made any sense and particularly not now that the price of gas is just plain silly low.

[timeforpeace]

13. Of course it doesn't make sense. It's just simplistic enough to be used to cajole morans to repeat

it over and over.

[mmonk]

21. It does when taken in context with the IPI pipeline alternative.

Also, you must take in consideration the donors and the nations involved.

[mmonk]

23. Here is something about the TAPI pipeline and the rivalry

with the IPI pipeline from 2008 other than the sources I gathered:

Stephen Blank, a professor at the U.S. Army War College, in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., said the U.S. government is particularly eager to provide an alternative to the proposed $7.5-billion (U.S.) Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, which those three countries have agreed to pursue.

“From the U.S. viewpoint, the idea of blocking Iran is of paramount significance,” he said.

As well, the United States is pushing the TAPI pipeline as one of several natural gas export options from Central Asia that would bypass Russia, which until now has maintained a stranglehold on gas exports from the region.

http://afghanistan-the-true-story.blogspot.com/2008/06/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war.html

It is now on schedule for this year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. CYA writ large by a president afraid of losing an already lost war. Pathetic.

[stray cat]

12. Start by understanding the realities of Afghanistan and Pakistan- then at least

you have a basis for understanding anything else

[grantcart]

15. Include India

More than a million people died just drawing the line between the two countries and there wasn't even a war going on.

Distablizing Pakistan and creating a possible front with India (the reason that Pakistani intelligence allowed the Taliban to flourish in the first place) seems like a reasonable international security concern especially considering both are nuclear powers.

[timeforpeace]

14. The Obama Presidential Legacy will look much better with Won A War on it, but the risk is that it

will instead say Lost Afghan War.

[Gregorian]

16. Imaginary enemies to enrich the largest percentage of our economy- the military.

The military is everything from food to rubber for tires to mining for steel. It's what makes us U.S.

And I'll accept any argument to the contrary if it can prove otherwise. And don't give me the GDP numbers unless you compare them to other countries. We paid 40% of our taxes toward military last year.

So that means you work one hour every day for The Military.

[barbtries]

22. i think this is the closest

to one single correct answer. thank you.

[mdmc]

20. We are there because we cannot admit defeat

Once we are able to do that, we can cut and run.
For now, we,
Stay The Course

u
n
t
i
l

a pro-west, secular, unified and stable Afghanistan government can "stand up" on its own..

[Time for change]

24. My opinion

We're there for reasons of expanding our empire -- an oil pipeline (see mmonk post above), expanding our military presence in a strategic area of the world, expansion of the military industrial complex, etc.

The official reason of course has to do with our fight against terrorism. That is absurd. It is acknowledged that there are only about 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. There is no rationale for going to war against a country to route out 100 people. The animosity of Muslims world-wide that we create through this occupation create far more anti-American terrorists that we could ever hope to kill through being there.

Anyhow, the whole war is a fraud because the Taliban offered to expedite bin Laden for trial, and George W. Bush refused -- for obvious reasons. I discuss it in much more detail in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=228705

K&R because if most Americans asked questions like this, public opinion would force us out of these catastrophes.

[shadowknows69]

25. I got nothing. Pipeline maybe?

[eilen]

26. Oil pipeline from Russia to an Atlantic accessible seaport. nt

Hydrocarbons and a New Strategic Region: The Caspian Sea and Central Asia

[C_Lawyer09]

27. If you ask the question within DU

The answers are quite predictable. I would ask the question: Do you really want an answer, or only to substantiate your own already held opinion? I've recommended several books that are very explanatory, in previous posts. It is obviously an exercise in futility. I'll leave you with this thought. Our presence in Afghanistan is much more complex than an oil pipeline or changing anti-American sentiment. If you really care to examine this complex and multi-tiered question, you may want to dedicate some reading time, vis a vis, authors whom have immersed themselves in this complex question.

[ThomWV]

28. Nothing here to substantiate

I have no informed opinion what so ever as to why we are there. I'll find your posts and do the reading you suggest. One thing I'm sure of, pipelines or contemplated ones have nothing to do with it and I have a hard time buying off on Oval Office ego as well. I do have to say this though, I am much inclined to accept the simplest answer that satisfies the question, and sometimes that seems glaringly plain just looking at the region on a globe. Maybe too simplistic.

[C_Lawyer09]

29. Here is a good book

"Seeds of Terror" How Heroin is Bankrolling the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by Gretchen Peters. Rather than focus on the same old tired refrain: Caspian oil reserves.... Pipeline... it would be helpful to note, narco-terror, its effects, as well as Pakistani security, both as a regional buffer and as holders of nuclear weapons, within a very unstable region. It is not often mentioned on du, but the architect of the containment policy was Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carters National Security Advisor, and for better of for worse, all Presidents since have been toeing that line. The reality of realizing oil from the Caspian, which has hugely less reserves than previously thought, is that it will be extremely risky, and hugely expensive. This also doesn't address how much refining would need to take place to purify the extremely unpure crude. There are many places the world over that would yield more and purer oil for cheaper. Believe it or not.... We have, as does the world, a vested security interest in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

[WT Fuheck]

31. $

period

[unhappycamper]

32. The Afghanistan adventure was used to loot this country's resources

under the guise of 'fight them over there'.........

A low grade simmering war (occupation) keeps contractors and the M-I-C employed.

Follow the money.

[quaker bill]

33. Because Bush invaded

and then did not leave. The choice remaining is how and when to leave, because sooner or later we will. This quickly boils down to whether we leave with OBL alive or OBL dead. I think the "OBL dead" option has been chosen. If we had left, or were fully engaged in leaving, the crotch bomber story would have had a completely different dimension politically.

[Toasterlad]

34. Two Words: "Oil" and "Pipeline"

[hayu_lol]

35. No goal for Afghanistan has been issued as yet...

after all, what goals could there possibly be? End the opium cash crop business? Sounds good but rather impractical. Dumbya after all, gave the Taliban some 41 million back in August of 2001 to destroy the crops.

Oil and gas pipelines and the building of those lines. Yup. That is a goal. Haliburton by the way, has the contract to build the infrastructure along the pipelines...the dorms, the mess facilities, the motor pools, and so on. From the Caspian Basin to Karachi which makes it lucrative for KBR and Haliburton.

Other than the pipeline, there is nothing worth our time and effort in the country. We cannot make of Afghanistan(the same for Pakistan)a westernized country. The people(different tribes)will not go for it.