If you can credibly explain why we are STILL in Afghanistan or Iraq, I will pay your way in the next

DU fundraiser.

You most provide a credible explanation. I'll be the judge of what is credible.

One liners are not credible.

Governments know that the planet's resources are running out, probably faster than anyone ever thought possible. While we'd like to think that human nature would lead to global cooperation and unity to solve the problem, history has shown that the opposite is what will happen instead. We will, at some point, see resource wars on a global scale. This might happen in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years -- I have no idea. But it seems to be a foregone conclusion at this point.

Governments are doing what they can now to secure whatever resources they can in order to prolong their national existence as long as possible, possibly in a vain hope that they can be the last man standing at the end of all the destruction and death. Iraq is the gateway to Middle East oil, and Afghanistan is the gateway to whatever mineral riches are hiding there. We will take from whatever nation on the planet is too weak to stand up to our fading superpower might.

Or, theory 2, we're there just because some greedy-ass blowhards in the military-industrial complex are getting rich off of it.

I think it's a little of both.

when Helen Thomas asked Obama why we were still there a few weeks ago -- his answer was so lame and so Bush-like, even HE wouldn't pass your judgment, I'd bet.

Me, I have NO reason at all for being there, except that it's profitable to the OLIGARCHS who REALLY run the system.

in the ongoing/upcoming oil wars, being situated where it is and having the mineral reserves that it does.


Oh and the same thing pretty much for Afghanistan, except more so in many ways.

.... inversely proportional to my finding of credible reasons here.

but it seems clear enough that there are multiple reasons - geostrategic (ie. national/regional security), energy policy and private interest being the primary three as far as I can tell. The government incentive is pretty clearly laid out in The Silk Road Strategy/Policy should anyone care to actually read it - from its early inception to recent updates to it (see links). What seems most wrong about our being there is that much of it seems directed by private interests that want to keep a very lucrative energy policy (reliant on oil/gas) etc. in place. And it seems to me that our government and military industrial complex work for them, and keep the wheels greased and the coffers full toward that end. And arms sales are also big business and require a war for both testing and market success.
After reading the links, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to buy into the 'War on Terror' meme that was used to place us in that region.

Our remaining in that region is surely a thorn in the side of China, Russia and Iran, who would no doubt prefer easy access and control of Eurasia and its markets and resources. At this point, I don't know that there are any easy answers. But in my own mind the enormous costs to our nation (in lives lost, lost revenue for R&D of new energies and markets and domestic improvements, national/global integrity relative to abuse of power and disregard for international/national laws, and the erosion of trust in our leadership) by far outweighs the gains. So I guess I won't be winning your contest.


The Policy Plan (1998 and 2006)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=171417

The Key To Success in Afghanistan
May 2010
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/silkroadpapers/1005Afghan.pdf


Spotlight on Afghanistan’s Minerals at the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) Conference

March 3-4, 2008 – Toronto, Canada

The Afghan Ministry of Mining (MoM), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Afghanistan Investment and Reconstruction Task Force (AIRTF) showcased Afghanistan’s Mineral resources at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) Conference and Trade Show in Toronto, March 3-4. Of particular highlight was the announcement that MoM will be tendering for the world-class Hajigak iron deposit in the next 6 months. Mr. Stephen G. Peters, USGS, and Adam Choppin, AIRTF, also presented to the PDAC/CAMESE Exhibitors Innovation Forum on Monday, March 3 on Afghanistan’s mineral resources and business climate

http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/conv/index.html



And this is some research from the Heritage Foundation, which informed the Bush strategy and which seems to be continuing under Obama.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/Heritage.htm

The Iraq invasion was unjustified.

You post a one-line question, so deal with the one-line answer in your own special way.

:smooooch:

My "own special way?" What might that be?

They were our friends during the 90s. Just like Iraq was our friend during the 80s.

If you want to bring up the fact that they were "harboring" Osama Bin Laden, does that really justify going to war? Clinton used diplomacy and economic sanctions against Libya to convince them to turn over the PanAm bombing suspects. We still haven't gotten Bin Laden. Which approach would you say worked better?

If you want an answer for why the Taliban and pre-2003 Iraq went from ally to enemy, that's it in a nutshell. A strong Iraq and unstable Afghanistan were no longer seen as good things, because of changes in the geopolitical situation (e.g. the dissolution of the USSR).

As for the harboring of OBL, I think the differing levels of involvement with the rest of the world and the stronger rule of Quadaffi in Libya would explain why a diplomacy and sanctions approach would have been less successful in Afghanistan. I'm still of two minds about the invasion itself and the post-invasion managment (WRT Afghanistan), but I am relatively sure that sanctions/diplo wouldn't have had the effect we wanted from the government in place at the time. What the answer should have been, I don't know. But I don't think we could repeat what we did with Libya.

Bush and his band of merry war criminals had already made up their minds that they wanted to go into Afghanistan. Heck, I'm sure they were already thinking about it prior to 9/11, that just gave them all the excuse they needed.

seriously?

I see absolutely no point in attempting to give an objective answer.

practice their war games.

I you have an army you have to be prepared.

just like viet nam. and the spanish civil war where the germans tested their weapons

for ww2.

Advantageous location.

Oil and profit.

I'd like to point out I do not now, nor will I ever, agree with either reason.

Hey, that's "credible" enough for many Americans.

All my OneLinerz R true!

That's what everyone's waiting for. Ray Hunt (Hunt Oil, Halliburton BoD, President's Foreign Affairs Advisory Board) got antsy and made a deal with the Kurds, pissing off Baghdad. State Dept. talked with Hunt prior to making the deal, then denied it when the shit hit the fan.

Paul Bremer sowed the seeds, making things corporate-friendly. The Qurna oil field's been sold, but the rest of the fruit's not ripe yet.

TPTB want it all and they don't care who they kill to secure it.

As Pericles said to the Athenians, "Your empire is now a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go."

The biggest reason we're still in both is to prevent a Saigon-style last helicopter off the roof of the embassy scene in Baghdad and Kabul.

I am missing the part where getting out of vietnam was remotely bad for anybody except the vietnamese supporters of our colonial regime.

Please explain.

Cambodia was our fault entirely: we supported the coup that overthrew Sihanouk, destabilizing the nation that the good prince had kept together as his life work. After Lon Nol took over and put Cambodia into the war, the events that followed were set in motion, regardless of our continued occupation of south vietnam.

What happened in Cambodia started in 1969, and our deliberate decision to spread the war to Cambodia ended up in the crimes perpetrated by the Pol Pot regime. Along the way of course we killed at least as many Cambodians in our brutal carpet bombing campaign starting as Pol Pot did. Our war crimes are exceptional though, right?

Speaking of which, after the Vietnamese put an end to Khmer Rouge rule we supported the Khmer Rouge guerrillas for the next 15 years or so.

But you haven't addressed the question. How was the fall of Saigon bad for the US? Instead you simply decided to change the topic.

And I'm sure you'd rationalize away the slaughter that would happen if we pulled out everybody tomorrow from Afghanistan.

Not at all. 1) we directly killed as many Cambodians as Pol Pot. 2) Cambodia was doomed when we overthrew Sihanouk, not when we pulled out of Saigon. 3) We could have stayed in Viet Nam another 10 years, killing another 2,000,000 Vietnamese along the way, and that would have changed nothing except putting off the opening date of the Nike sneaker factory.

And eat cake when our fingers get tired.

Remember, tyranny is paying taxes. Wars are liberating. And laws that outlaw discrimination are the opposite of freedom. A is A and War is peace.

There really is nothing else to it.

because 'we broke it, we bought it'.

We went into Afghanistan to end the Taliban, disrupt or destroy Al Qaeda and get Bin Laden. Having achieved some of those goals we then went for Iraq on completely false assumptions for whatever reason you want to give Bush/Cheney oil/revenge/resources/US 'freedom' outpost while scaling back and screwing up progress in Afghanistan. Mainly the change in tactics and troops, where 'good' soldiers/special forces built a relationship with the people new soldiers were there to kill or didn't care to 'get to know' the people, upsetting them and not providing stability or security. This would be carried over to Iraq where we 'quickly' beat the Iraqi army/military, and failed to provide security and stability for the people. Lack of foresight into keeping the country/cities running with food/water security helped breed insurgents, along with the influx of those seeking to kill americans but who either couldn't or wouldn't hop on a plane to do so.

Fast forward we still didn't do enough to provide security to the regions we 'conquered' and didn't do enough to train and assist the natives in running their own governments or providing the security they need. So here we are occupying countries where we routinely kill civilians as part of our campaign against the enemy, fail to provide security for the people who now live in the knowledge that a bomb, missile, or firefight can kill them at nearly anytime. We are responsible for the state of these countries so we should put forth the effort into fixing what we broke, will it ever be perfect I doubt it but we haven't reached the 'level' they should be at. Where or what is that level, well it is subjective best way I can put it is to have the locals at least have the trained people/equipment they need to theoretically get the 'job done' even though it probably will never be done.

Iraq is bullshit, we have no reason to be there. In fairness, though, I'm kind of the mind that "you broke it, you bought it." It's one of those gifts from shrub that keeps on giving.

Afghanistan is different. That nation harbored the people responsible for 9-11. The Saudi's are more responsible, but they're our "allies." Personally, I think we should pull our troops out and nuke the bastards back into the stone age. That's not very enlightened, but screw it. I'd prefer we assassinate the entire house of Saud, but, barring that, kill every single person associated with 9-11. That means the Taliban, and they're in Afghanistan. Blow their shit up, and let the world know that picking a fight with America is a really silly idea.

No, I'm not able to provide any explanation for why we're still in either place, this is just to tell you you're great.

So WE fund them, and the corporations thrive. Get it? :eyes:

that's 'b-r-a-n-d-e-r-s -space- s-e-i-n-e'

Thanks!

I'd rather hear from some military expert first; not just going to jump on the bandwagon that it ought to be done already just because it seems that way to us keyboard warriors.

My comments pertain only to Afghanistan.

There are some potentially dangerous consequences to our national security if we were to withdraw from Afghanistan and let the Taliban retake the country. First, it would be a major victory for radical Islam and a major defeat for the world's only "superpower." Besides the blow to our prestige, the spread of radical Islam may indeed represent an increased threat of international terrorism. Long term, fundamentalist theocracies could replace regimes in the region we depend on for oil. Our geostrategic interests are definitely at play here, however much I desagree with the strategy. The greatest potential danger is in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Their fight against the radicals in the tribal border region is tied in with our fight against the Taliban & al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nukes in the hands of a regime closely allied with the Taliban is not a good thing.

How do you think a Taliban victory would play out in the US after Obama decided to "cut and run" and images of the Taliban marching triumphantly in the streets of Kabul and burning American flags were splashed all over our TV screens? This would be a tremendous gift to the rethugs and their meme that Democarts are weak and simply can't be trusted in matters of national security. It could very well revive their political fortunes and their beligerent foreign policy, with the wounded pride of 'murkins losing their first war since Vietnam.

I think the potential dangers of a Taliban victory and the spread of radical Islam combined with the domestic political consequences were the primary factors in President Obama's decision to increase our efforts to secure Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#US_world_dominance

Not saying I agree with it. I think it is pure BS, but this neo-con crap still determines our Foreign Policy and Obama hasn't changed this.

Also because significant amounts of the populace believe we can create friendly, stable trading partners at gunpoint or some variation on rhetoric that means the same bullshit.

Right along with the hairbrained idea that an idea can be fought and defeated by the power of our mighty arms.

We shall destroy terra!!!!!

The big dogs want the booty and the little folk believe a bunch of fantastical bullshit that covers for the wealth extraction scam.