Why Are We in Afghanistan?

[amborin]

Another Step in the March of Folly


Why Are We in Afghanistan?, a new video being promoted by US Labor Against the War, explores domestic pressures, strategic interests, the history of U.S. foreign intervention, and popular resistance related to the war.

Written and directed by Michael Zweig of the Center for Study of Working Class Life at New York's Stonybrook University."

Video here:


http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/publications/why_afghanistan.shtml




snippets from the video:





"Current military spending eats up nearly half of every discretionary dollar the federal government spends. Military expenses in fiscal year 2010 will be 1,185 times what the government spends for occupational safety and health.
snip

"Afghanistan is next to or near Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. These are all countries that are vitally important to the United States as key allies or enemies, and as potential economic and political competitors. Afghanistan is also next to Turkmenistan and other Central Asian Republics that are rich in oil and natural gas. Their total reserves exceed those in the United States. (Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 2001) p.144)."

snip

"In May 2001, the final report of the U.S. National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice-President Dick Cheney, explicitly identified Central Asian republics and the Caspian region as a “rapidly growing new area of supply.” (National Energy Policy, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, May 2001, p. 8.7)"

snip

"These efforts followed an attempt by the U.S. oil company Unocal, also supported by the U.S. government, to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to connect with the Arabian Sea in the mid-1990s. But the Taliban would not agree to the pipeline when they controlled Afghanistan, and any pipeline is impossible to establish as long as Afghanistan is unstable."

[spanone]

1. because 911 happened?

[LakeSamish706]

2. Bullshit! And 911 needs to be re investigated. There is no way in hell that 911 and the official

story are what happened.

[mike_c]

3. no Afghan had anything to do with 9/11-- nor did the Taliban....

On the other hand, we have always been at war with East Asia. That makes as much sense as any other justification of Afghanistan.

[Nikki Stone1]

7. That and (1) the surrounding of Russia and (2) the surrounding of Iran

Russia will be contained, Iran will be attacked, and Unocal will get its pipeline.

[Lorien]

64. You're not serious, are you?

They were planning the pipeline well before that, they just needed an excuse...

[ddeclue]

4. Why do people like you insist on re-writing history?

9/11 is all the reason we need.

It doesn't justify Iraq but it sure as hell justifies Afghanistan.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. The hijackers were mostly Saudi and funded by Pakistani intelligence (ISI)

Logically, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[EFerrari]

9. And Germany. n/t

[closeupready]

12. lol - you know, this is just like that Rachel Maddow segment

where she spoofs Liz Cheney calling everyone al-qaida sympathizers and traitors. :rofl:

Did you see it?

[EFerrari]

16. Yeah, I did. That was great.

lol

[eridani]

54. You forgot London! n/t

[EFerrari]

56. And New Jersey, Florida and California.

[ddeclue]

10. And their leadership was in Afghanistan..who cares where they had passports?

that is a totally irrelevant argument. They were NOT under the command and control of Saudi Arabia - in fact they wanted to overthrow the gov't of Saudi Arabia.

And yes we should attack Pakistan and to some extent we have been doing so.

[mike_c]

14. neither were they under the command and control of ANY afghans....

This has all been discussed here ad nauseum. I'd suggest you stop listening to the Fox News version of history.

[closeupready]

17. Thank you.

I'm glad I'm not the only rational person on this board. :hi:

[ddeclue]

18. I suggest you start listening to REALITY..instead of the crazy version of history

The leadership of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan until they were driven out by the U.S. into Pakistan where we've largely let them be because we chose to go fight an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Sorry if you want to be obtusely ignorant of reality but facts are stubborn things as John Adams said and you don't get re-write history.

[closeupready]

23. I suggest you read some George Washington:

>>Once again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality, Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation. He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy. Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Foreign_Relations.2C_the_Dangers_of_Permanent_Foreign_Alliances.2C_and_Free_Trade

[mike_c]

25. I'm not at all "ignorant" of reality or history or whatever....

You, on the other hand, have been listening to RW talking points for too long.

Look, I'm not going to waste my breath rehashing discussions that have been held here over and over for the benefit of folks who've swallowed the Bush administration justifications for war.

Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 9/11. NOTHING. NADA. NOT ONE THING. Stop listening to your American teevee and pay attention to real history. You've been lied to, and you've swallowed the lies, hook, line, and sinker. I suppose that makes it easier to sleep at night.

[EFerrari]

35. Declassified State Dept. Documents: Taliban Tried to Stop bin Laden from Attacking U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7705148

[mike_c]

37. I think we're wasting our breath trying to enlighten the lemmings....

God I hate feeling that way, but sometimes it just feels like such a perpetual struggle. As your link attests, this has all been discussed over and over here, yet the RW justifications just keep rearing their ugly mugs. It's damned discouraging sometimes.

[EFerrari]

43. Propaganda works.

:shrug:

[closeupready]

68. It's sad but true.

I just put people like that on ignore. I don't mean one or two moments of rage or frustration - I mean constant spamming of misinformation, day after day after day, relentlessly. I can't read it or look at it without feeling really snarky.

[Nikki Stone1]

15. Their leadership had been in a lot of places including the Sudan; they were quite mobile

To bomb the hell out of innocent civilians to get a leadership that still eludes the US military was immoral. Better to let move and ambush them with special ops guys in some remote place.

Oh and Osama? CIA asset from the late 70s.

[ddeclue]

21. Oh and Osama wasn't under out control after about 1989.

He really never was under our control - we just trained him and supplied him and played the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" game which always backfires sooner or later. And NO it wasn't immoral to fight a war that we didn't start and NO we didn't carpet bomb Afghanistan sorry but that's ALSO re-writing history and YES we DID send in the special ops guys and the CIA after Al Qaeda but Bush pulled them all back when he wanted to go into Iraq instead.

[arcadian]

27. You have no idea of the history of that region

Or US intervention. The CIA had been encouraging radical Islam in the Middle east since the 1950s, the reason being that they could tip the balance of power by pointing out to the Muslim world that the Communists were godless. The Soviets already had spheres of influence in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Ethiopia, Egypt and several others. Egypt and Syria attempted to create a pan-Arabic socialist state. The US owns the blowback of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden.

[Nikki Stone1]

32. +10,000

Yes.

[polly7]

39. 9/11 was a crime.

It was not ordered by the leader of Afghanistan, nor its people.

It should have been treated like a crime using the goodwill and intelligence offered by most of the world instead of them being spit on and ignored in favour of 'war'.

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. "and yes we should attack Pakistan and to some extent we're doing so." But not find Bin laden right?

After all, he's not important, probably because he's dead. Shh!

Don't want to upset the uninformed citizens back home. They wouldn't understand the complexities of the situation.

[polly7]

38. Bingo.

Afghanistan was a convenient excuse for that Unical pipeline the Taliban had regected in previous talks with the U.S.

[mike_c]

11. again, NO AFGHAN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11....

What's so hard about that to understand? The Afghans were utterly scapegoated by the Bush administration and the American media went along enthusiastically. Stop listening to Fox News.

[Xithras]

74. Yes, but you're forgetting one detail.

We asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden and the AQ heads, or to let us go in and get him. We assured them that we'd leave them alone if they complied.

The Taliban refused.

I had no problem with the fact that we initially went in to vaporize the AQ strongholds. Quite honestly, I have no real sympathies with the Taliban either, and think the world is a better place with most of them dead.

I have a HUGE problem with the fact that we're still in Afghanistan almost a decade later. Given our original reasons for being there, we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan more than a year, TOPS.

[mike_c]

75. more misinformation....

First, the Taliban DID offer to turn bin Laden over to a neutral party if the U.S. could provide evidence that he was responsible for 9/11. We, in our usual blustery manner, said "screw evidence, we'll just bomb your country!" The neutral party bit was because they have religious and cultural prohibitions against turning muslim brothers over to infidels for torture and execution. That actually seems pretty civilized, given the behavior of America subsequently. A third party would have gotten them off the hook with their religious issues. It's the Taliban-- they take Islam seriously.

Second, AQ is not associated with the Taliban in any meaningful way, and that was especially true in 2001. The Taliban is a Pashtun tribal movement that has never had any serious international agenda. Osama bin Laden was not their prisoner after 9/11. One of the greatest military forces on Earth couldn't secure him after a massive bombing campaign and an invasion. The Taliban was never in a good position to do more.

U.S. negotiators knew that. There was NEVER any intention to do anything but go to war. Bush wanted war desperately, and he desperately needed war politically. We would have gone to war against Afghanistan even if the Taliban had gift wrapped OBL and handed him over with a big shipment of processed heroin for the CIA to sweeten the deal. That, of course, is speculation, but the reality is not much removed-- the Taliban did offer to try and help, and the U.S. did rebuke their offers. Google the news reports if you're sceptical. They were NOT prominent in the U.S. media at the time of course, because the administration message control was hell bent on justifying war at any cost.

on edit-- and all of this ignores the reality that the Taliban were no more responsible for 9/11 than you or I were responsible for Timothy McVeigh bombing the Murrah Building. They were George Bush's scapegoats. Period. Now they're Obama's scapegoats.

[Webster Green]

22. The Big Dick And His Trained Chimp are responsible for 9/11..

We should declare war on them. Lock them up anyway.

[MadHound]

28. Ah, so you're in favor of punishing and killing an entire country

For the sins of a few. Hmm, and most of those hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. So why aren't we going after SA? Oh, yeah, they sell us oil and are our bestest buddies:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. Who wrote the history YOU are reading? nt

[leftstreet]

5. Corporate access to resources n/t

[MichiganVote]

6. Because the military has a budget to expand.

[Molchmeister]

13. Better question?

Why are we carrying out offensive activities in Pakistan without congressional authorization to use force(it's what we do now instead of Declaring War).

[EFerrari]

19. We are not bombing Cambodia!

Welcome to DU.

[closeupready]

20. It's just a piece of paper, the Consitution, isn't it?

I mean, it doesn't actually mean anything, does it? :sarcasm:

[Thothmes]

78. The administration does have Congressional authorization

Only Congress can pay for the war. They have and will continue to pay for this war. As long as Congress continues to pay for the war, they are authorizing it.

[treestar]

24. Al Qaeda being there is what started it

Enabled by the Taliban.

[mike_c]

29. al qaeda was there because we put them there...

...and no other reason. The Taliban had little or nothing to do with al-Qaeda before, during, and after 9/11. Conflating the two is an American political and media myth propagated by the Bush administration to sell a war it desperately wanted against an "enemy" that was little more than a scapegoat for a monkey king who wanted to be a "war president."

[treestar]

51. True, that's another aspect

Long term U.S. policy has not been good. It certainly helped create the very monster that attacked us.

[MadHound]

30. So are we going to chase Al Qaeda and the Taliban around the world,

Blowing up countries where they are present? Seems rather cruel and pointless.

[treestar]

52. No, but under a Repuke Administration?

No doubt but that the wars would continue. Remember McCain saying "There will be more wars."

[MadHound]

61. Umm, the wars are already continuing

So what's the difference:shrug:

[Toasterlad]

26. Because We Haven't "Won" Yet, Duh!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Because we have a Democratic President who wants to show he's "tough". LBJ II.

[Chulanowa]

33. We entered afghanistan because we had a warmongering fuck for a president

who wanted to make the US look like it had a giant military dick again.

The reason we're still there is the pottery barn rule - you break it, you buy it. That is, we have an obligation to stay there as long as need be to ensure that the enemy - the Taliban in Afghanistan's case - remains suppressed enough that the local people can take the job and don't need us anymore.

Contrary to some wishes, we can't just zip the hell out of there. We have a moral and political obligation to stick around until either A) the Afghans are safe from our mutual enemy or 2) the Afghani government finally tells us to fuck off. Unlike Iraq, they haven't done so yet.

[MadHound]

34. Gotta a newsflash for you

We're going to bleed ourselves dry trying to "ensure that the enemy - the Taliban in Afghanistan's case - remains suppressed enough that the local people can take the job and don't need us anymore." Because it doesn't matter when we leave, tomorrow or in twenty years, when we do leave the Afghan people will destroy whatever we have set up because it was set up as invaders and is seen as illegal and illegit. The Taliban or some other group will emerge out of the power struggle and there isn't a single thing we can do about it.

The only thing we're doing is destroying the country, bankrupting our own, and running up the body count. We have failed, we have fucked up and there is no way to fix it. It is better to pull out now rather than prolonging the agony.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

44. Wow, where are you coming from?

Oh, I get it, you can't accept the truth so you're trying to smear me as some sort of racist. OK, whatever.

Now then, back to the intelligent, non-insulting part of this dialogue. Look at history, when Vietnam, Iran, countries throughout Africa and Asia through off their imperial oppressors, they destroyed whatever government and ruling institutions left behind by the imperialists and set up their own. This was done either violently or non-violently (note, in my original reply to you I mentioned nothing about violence, you simply assumed. Guess what happens when you ass u me.). This is a simple fact. That is what is going to happen in Afghanistan as well. What, you honestly think they'll keep around a government set up by the foreign occupier that propped up a corrupt leader such as Kharzi?

How is our doubling down in Afghanistan helping that country? More people killed, more stuff destroyed, and now we're going into Pakistan, oh boy:eyes:

I don't know what your problem is, and frankly I don't care. However if you want to continue to hang around this place you need to stop accusing people who disagree with you of being racists and such. It does nothing to help your argument or you image.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

60. Thank you for proving my point.

The more you hurl personal insults, the weaker we all know your argument is.

Sad, pathetic really, that you can't engage in a civilized discussion, but rather must use personal insults and bullshit to try and defend yourself. Get back to me when you want to talk like a normal, civilized human being.

[GameChanger]

36. Why are we there? 4 words.

Pipelines

PNAC

Poppies

Profits

[Kalun D]

59. ^^^ ++++ 10

Good one, succinct and to the point

[Individualist]

69. Correct!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

41. That too, the more military bases in countries formerly opposed to them,

the better. According to PNAC.

[Iggo]

45. Cuz Soddum Husayn attacked us on the 911...duh.

[EFerrari]

46. Two journalists that have worked this story and who deserve some attention

because they don't follow the herd are Ahmed Rashid and Lawrence Wright.

Rashid is good for understanding the region and Wright is good for the deflation of the bin Laden mythology.

There are multiple segments with both up at the CSPAN archives.


One with Wright:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/194150-1

One with Rashid:
http://www.booktv.org/Program/9533/Descent+Into+Chaos+The+United+States+and+the+Failure+of+Nation+Building+in+Pakistan+Afghanistan+and+Central+Asia.aspx

[amborin]

48. thanks for posting; plus, Rashid wrote:

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 2001)

[Molchmeister]

53. Constitutional solution......

Let's say we OK the 33 billion they want to continue the war and give all those who have served over there a $25,000 bonus (say .5 million soldiers 12.5 billion). Now we issue letters of marque and reprisal on the top 5000 terrorists in the world, an open bounty of four million dollars on the top terrorists in the world. Terrorist would be falling out of the sky.

[EFerrari]

55. I can't think of anyone who knows the region as well

and who is not in the pocket of any political faction. He's a good speaker as well.

[amborin]

63. sounds good!

[Kablooie]

49. I don't know about you, but I'm not in Afghanistan.

[Nikki Stone1]

50. Rimshot!

We need a rimshot smilie.

[madeline_con]

57. Google the pipeline they want to build right thru the middle.

And stop asking that same dumb question.

[Kalun D]

58. Several Reasons

To protect and defend the CIA initiated and supported Opium crop which the Taliban almost completely eradicated, it represents 80% of the world's total opium

To establish a planned oil/gas pipeline route from the Caspian basin through Afghan to a deep water port

To maintain the excuse for defense industry expenditures which have gone from $250 Billion per year in 2000 to $750 Billion/year now. Obama vigorously supported and pushed through congress the latest defense appropriations

To increase the business of the military contractors like Blackwater who have been ramped up by 30% since Obama took office.

To establish and maintain bases in oil rich regions

These are the real reasons,

the phony BS excuse reasons are 911 (an inside job to foment oil wars),
the threat of terror (100 times as rare as lighting),
to get Osama (he's been dead since 2002),
to fight Al Qaida (a creation of the CIA)

[Echo In Light]

62. .

[leftstreet]

67. +1

[and-justice-for-all]

65. We are in Afghanistan so there is no money for education...

or anything else that is actually important.

[Robb]

66. OMG this is groundbreaking work.

Or would have been in 2001. Now it's generous to call it well-intentioned but out-of-date.

[Greyhound]

72. I love the fact that $6B and 6 years later, we still haven't trained a police force.

150,000 Afghans have gone through the process, receiving weapons and uniforms, but never any training in what the job is, how to carry it out, or even how to use the weapons issued. Not surprisingly, only 30,000 are still around.

A cynical person might note that the genius of U.S. military has armed and provisioned at least an additional 120,000 pissed off natives in an occupied country. The Obama administration has at least noticed this and says something will be done.
:eyes:

[NoSheep]

73. I thought we were still there because Pakistan has nukes.

[polly7]

76. WikiLeaks to release video of civilians, journalists being murdered in airstrike

WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTO IN ARTICLE

WikiLeaks to release video of civilians, journalists being murdered in airstrike

By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, March 27th, 2010 -- 5:18 pm

Stumble This! Share
Whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks is planning to release a video that reveals what it's calling a Pentagon "cover-up" of an incident in which numerous civilians and journalists were murdered in an airstrike, according to a recent media advisory.

The video will be released on April 5 at the National Press Club, the group said.

They also noted their members have recently been tailed by individuals under State Department diplomatic immunity, and that "one related person was detained for 22 hours" while authorities seized computer equipment.

In a video released Friday, a Russia Today broadcast discusses the pending release of the video WikiLeaks first announced in a tweet on Feb. 20, 2010, which read: "Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs."

A follow-up on March 22 announced their reveal date.

Story continues below...

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/wikileaks-release-video-civilians-journalists-murdered-airstrike/
\

[dkofos]

77. Because the MIC is making BILLIONS of DOLLARS.