Justification for war in Afghanistan

[REASON]

War in Afghanistan

 

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

It's good to learn a little history to go along with your expertise at geography.

 

And was any of this accomplished before we headed off to the real goal of this administration.....captalizing on the oil fields of Iraq?

 

Has any of it been accomplished to this day, nearly seven years and nearly three trillion dollars later? Not to mention several hundred thousand lives including more than 4,000 of our soldiers. Consider the current impact on our economy.

 

Are you going to continue to stand behind that rhetoric as an effective foreign policy?

 

All we seem to care about today is being able to claim "victory," whatever the hell that means. It's pathetic narcissism in the face of rampant greed and incompetence, and it's no wonder we find ourselves in such crises these days. It's time for a new approach and new leadership.

[questor]

I merely spoke to the reason we WENT to war. I am for leaving these barbarians to work out their own problems. By the way, I am unaware we went in for oil. How did we do? Where is all the money we made? They have a lot of oil, so I'm happy they are giving it to us.

[modest]

I merely spoke to the reason we WENT to war. I am for leaving these barbarians to work out their own problems.

 

The people of Afghanistan are not barbarians. Considering the history of war in that country over the last 40 years and the deep divisions that has brought, I'd say they are doing remarkably well governing themselves.

 

ISAF is not an American force and we (you and I as Americans) don't get to decide if the security force stays in Afghanistan or not. Frankly, the Afghan government needs the help. Why would you advocate disrupting al-Qaeda and removing the Taliban from power only to watch them attempt to regain that footing without offering Kabul any help? Would you like to watch them fight a civil war? Do you think that would be good for the region or good for America?

 

~modest

[questor]

To me they are barbaric. Their major export is opium and derivatives. A great number of the population are Taliban sympathisers. We are in a no-win situation there for a non-strategic country. They will bleed us just like they bled Russia. Our country is teetering on financial chaos, what is our gain to stay there?

[modest]

We are in a no-win situation there for a non-strategic country.

 

You display no knowledge of the situation. Central Asia is arguably the area of greatest political interest between Russia, China and the US. Russia and China are playing a high level chess game for control in the region. The geopolitics of oil and gas near the Caspian sea alone...

 

"non-strategic country" :D

 

~modest

[questor]

So, we are not spending enough men, materiel, and money. Now you want to interject us in a situation that does not directly endanger us at this time. I guess you also want to put the missle defense system in Poland, we'll get Russia REALLY pissed off. Have you noticed we have a shortage of troops? Have you also noticed we are teetering on the edge of financial chaos?

Do you not think some other countries should step up to the plate? This country is ready to riot about the current war.

[modest]

Now you want to interject us in a situation that does not directly endanger us at this time.

 

What situation?

 

~modest

[Cedars]

In 1998 or 1999, the Clinton Admin made several formal requests for the taliban to hand over Bin Laden to face charges as the mastermind behind the African embassy bombings.

 

After 9-11, Bush put it to the taliban to hand over bin laden or we would come after him.

 

We will never know if war would have occurred if the Taliban had turned him over, but it is likely it would have delayed the actions of the US military at least.

 

The military presence in Afghanistan is a direct result of Taliban policy.

[pgrmdave]

I merely spoke to the reason we WENT to war. I am for leaving these barbarians to work out their own problems. By the way, I am unaware we went in for oil. How did we do? Where is all the money we made? They have a lot of oil, so I'm happy they are giving it to us.

 

As I understand it, it is not for their oil, per se, but rather for the potential to run a pipeline through afghanistan. However, I haven't looked into it in a long time, and I can't say that I'm very familiar with the region. I do know that, from what I've heard, Afghanistan would be a good candidate, like Iran, to have a secular democracy. While their governments have been very controlled by religious politics, the people themselves tend to be considered pragmatic and not often extremist. (Obviously, both countries have extremists, just like we have Fred Phelps. Just because they are the loudest voices doesn't mean they're the most common).

[modest]

As I understand it, it is not for their oil, per se, but rather for the potential to run a pipeline through afghanistan. However, I haven't looked into it in a long time, and I can't say that I'm very familiar with the region.

 

The war for pipeline thing is untrue. It's a conspiracy theory. The pipeline would more-likely have been built without the war than with it. The Taliban had already agreed to its construction. Also, it wouldn't be an oil pipeline as Turkmenistan has little oil, but is the 4th largest holder of natural gas in the world.

 

It would be beneficial for America if this pipeline were built, but it would be more beneficial for the region. Turkmenistan would benefit most along with Afghanistan which would gain significant income from transport fees. Pakistan and India would be the largest recipients of the pipeline's product which is an eager prospect for both countries.

 

Turkmenistan has vast riches just like Kazakhstan to the north. Unfortunately, they do not share a border with Russia like Kazakhstan does limiting Russia's ability to control Turkmenistan's distribution. Russia wants to control any pipeline that's built in order to control the oil/gas market of eastern (and soon western) Europe. This gives Russia political power which they are not afraid to use.

 

They wield this power by raising oil rates to ridiculous levels unless countries comply with their political demands. They will even withhold oil completely if their demands aren't met. In 2004 the Ukraine was accompanying itself diplomatically with the EU to which Russia responded by upping prices. Ukraine resisted further in 2005 and Russia shut off the pipeline completely (in the middle of winter).

 

So, Russia doesn't want to loose this power. A gas pipeline was recently completed running from Azerbaijan (west side of the Caspian sea) to open ocean in Turkey (South Caucasus Pipeline). This was a good development for Turkmenistan which would be able to run a pipeline across the bottom the Caspian and on to open markets. However, this prospect would not benefit Russia either monetarily or politically so they did everything possible to stop the project which it looks like the succeeded in. The proposed underwater pipeline was: Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

 

RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - Energy nexus: Russia and Central Asia

JTW News - End of Russian Monopoly in Energy?!

EurasiaNet Business & Economics - Russia Celebrates its Central Asian Energy Coup

 

It is notable that China, like the US, is worried about being so totally dependent on Middle Eastern oil. As wikipedia says on their ‘Strait of Malacca’ page:

About a quarter of all oil carried by sea passes through the strait, mainly from Persian Gulf suppliers to Asian markets such as China, Japan, and South Korea.

A Naval conflict could seriously hinder China’s ability to sustain itself if shipping lanes were unsafe for oil freighters. It is, therefore, a strategy of China to import oil by other (more direct) routes that will be less vulnerable to possible future aggressors. They are finishing up the Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline which is currently operating as China’s first direct import pipeline.

 

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are therefore both doing quite well at distributing their natural resources (as is, of course, Russia). The only country really lagging in their ability to get the Caspian Sea's oil and gas out of the landlocked region is Turkmenistan. Unfortunately, instability in Afghanistan has put plans for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline on hold and, Russia put the trans-Caspian plans on hold. It would be nice to get that gas out to the world, and it's really sad that if they are ever able to do so via Afghanistan there will be people who jump on that fact saying "See - that's why America went to war". Really sad.

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

Very interesting Modest

Thanks for the info

Are you sure about the pipeline? I think I posted a link about it earlier in this thread

What about the recent USA geographical survey of Afganistan? No conspiracy theory here?

 

The CIA had plenty of opportunities to get Bin Laden and they blew them because of

1. Incompetence

2. Lack of direction/decisiveness from the very top

3. Trusting the Pakistani Secret Service-who screwed them.

4. Dithering about getting military aid to strong Afghan war lords like Massued (sp?) ( partly the fault of the Pakkis again)

 

 

Someone has been invading Afghanistan for the last 200+ years. No one has ever "won"

Australia has lost more troops there than in Iraq and we are not even a member of NATO (If you look we are just above Antarctica; about as far away from Afghanistan as possible.)

Our new PM has called on NATO troops to step up to the plate and also take on some of the more risky patrols instead of playing cards in the fortified barracks.

 

I don't think you can blame the Afghani people for growing opium

They have to eat

The USA deforested most of Viet-Nam in the sixties with weedicide. How come the reluctance to do the same to poppy fields in Afghanistan?

No conspiracy theory here either?

 

Quite a few Afghani people helped develop out-back Australia in the early days and many Australians have fond memories of them.

They brought their camels with them. Many of whom are now feral. They are now such a pure, hardy blood line we are exporting them back to the Middle East!

[Moontanman]

So, we are not spending enough men, materiel, and money. Now you want to interject us in a situation that does not directly endanger us at this time. I guess you also want to put the missle defense system in Poland, we'll get Russia REALLY pissed off. Have you noticed we have a shortage of troops? Have you also noticed we are teetering on the edge of financial chaos?

Do you not think some other countries should step up to the plate? This country is ready to riot about the current war.

 

We are teetering on the brink at least partially due to a BS war we should never have started. Yes we have a shortage of troops, because of a BS war in Iraq. It's flat out amazing how your tunnel vision works. We have reason to want to pacify Afghanistan, they attacked us, we should have put the effort we put into Iraq into Afghanistan, if we don't it will indeed grind us down.

[questor]

How many years, how many soldiers, how many dollars are we supposed to spend in Afghanistan, when the Taliban has a strong parallel government and is strengthening its grip on the countryside? What will be our reward and when? Karzai will probably not live another year.

[Moontanman]

How many years, how many soldiers, how many dollars are we supposed to spend in Afghanistan, when the Taliban has a strong parallel government and is strengthening its grip on the countryside? What will be our reward and when? Karzai will probably not live another year.

 

If we are going to war for a reward we are always going to be disappointed. The war in Afghanistan is where it is because of Failed Bush Administration policies. If we had gone into Afghanistan the same way we went into Iraq things would be different. Iraq needs to wind down and Afghanistan needs to wind up, we should already be there in force the way we are in Iraq. I dare say we will find a more positive civilian population in Afghanistan when the Taliban is routed than we did in Iraq when we got rid of the Hussein government. Since you are such a conservative true believer I'm surprised to see you taking the wus position questor, do I hear conservative clucking?

[questor]

You didn't answer the question: how many soldiers, how much time. how much money?

[modest]

how many soldiers, how much time. how much money?

 

That's up to NATO. ISAF is a NATO force.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

You didn't answer the question: how many soldiers, how much time. how much money?

 

Well I guess it's the same answer Bush gave for the totally unjustified war in Iraq as much and as many as it takes to win! ;) You don't go to war unless you go to war to win, Bush went to war in Afghanistan to punish, to show a force, to pussyfoot, not to win, now we have to win :)