Afghanistan: War of Choice or War of Necessity?

Obama tells veterans Afghanistan is a 'war of necessity'

His speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference gave the president a chance to tout efforts to modernize the military, boost veterans' medical care and eliminate wasteful spending.

Reporting from Phoenix - Speaking to more than 5,500 veterans, President Obama today renewed his commitment to dismantling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- a struggle he said was "fundamental to the defense of our people" -- and offered assurances that his healthcare overhaul would not touch veterans' medical benefits.

"This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity," Obama told the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars conference -- cautioning that the insurgency would not be defeated overnight. "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."With U.S. forces scheduled to withdraw from Iraq by 2011, Obama pledged that in the future, he would only send the nation's service members "into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary." "When I do," the president said, "it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done" -- a clear criticism of the George W. Bush administration's actions in Iraq.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-vfw18-2009aug18,0,838307.story

and of course to keep filling the coffers of the military industrial complex.

So while the question is good for getting outrage going, it's really neither here nor there.

If we were to get serious about reducing the amount of oil we consume as a society then we could pay as much attention to Muslim "terrorists" as we do to Tamil "terrorists", ie, almost none.

But it's too hot to ride a bike places,

Or it's not safe,

Or I can't afford to live in a convenient location,

Or some other lame-ass excuse.

So yes, until we decide to consume less oil it's necessary to be militarily involved in places where oil is produced.

Brought to you by world banks and oil/energy cartels, Ltd.

I thought it was pretty much a wasteland. So what would be the corporate interest in war in Afghanistan. I can understand the argument for Iraq. But Afghanistan is basically a bunch or rock and poppies.

natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones. (in that order)

http://www.classbrain.com/art_cr/publish/afghanistan_natural_resources.shtml

already have plenty of already.

We have tons of natural gas. Oil certainly would be interesting but according to the 2006 assessment by the USGS the estimate is at most 1.5 million barrels of oil. Or about 1/10th of one percent of the world's reserves. In an area that would cost a ton to develop infrastructure, provide security, etc. Not sure I see it likely that this is a "corporate war."

The natural gas by the way is between Croatia and Serbia in the rankings and that's assuming the estimate is accurate.

Afghanistan is an undeveloped wasteland. Not every part of the Earth is equally filled with good stuff. Afghanistan is one area that didn't get the good part.

I think it's a bit of all that you have listed :shrug:

Seriously, how many people out there don't know Hamid Karzai was an acquaintance of Bush from one of the oil companies he ran into the ground before becoming governor? And that Unocal wanted that pipeline like, forever, but couldn't after the Taliban suddenly became an enemy after the attacks on the African embassies? And that Unocal sponsored Bush's (re-)election campaign?

But Obama must know.