What are we fighting for?

[MadHound]

"Afghanistan discovered an oilfield containing an estimated 1.8 billion barrels of crude in the north of the country, a Mines Ministry official said.

If proven, the resource would be more than 10 times the size of the country’s oil reserves, assessed at more than 150 million barrels by the U.S. Geological Survey. By comparison, Saudi Arabia had proven reserves of 264.6 billion barrels at the end of 2009, according to BP Plc data"

<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-15/afghanistan-discovers-1-8-billion-barrel-oilfield-in-north-ministry-says.html>

Funny thing is, though the specifics about this weren't known when we went into this war, it was well known that Afghanistan contained large quantities of untapped resources. That's why people have been trying to conquer the area for thousands of years.

Between this discovery, and the one trillion dollar mineral discover a month ago, it looks like we're going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long while. After all, can't leave all those goodies in the hands of their rightful owners.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. and I thought it was the Poppies!

what about the pipeline?

[MadHound]

2. Afghanistan offers a number of different enticements for the would be imperial power

Much like Vietnam did, and how long were Americans involved in that quagmire? But hey, the CIA got to start a heroin epidemic, first among the troops over there, then among the civilian US population. An action that they mirrored twenty years later by introducing crack to LA.

Some interesting and timely reading for you, an old but informative book called "The Politics of Heroin" by Alfred McCoy. Very eye opening with huge implications for our current situation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. who exactly is deciding this?

[MadHound]

6. Way too long to go into on a message board,

Like I said, read the McCoy book. A brief introduction here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_W._McCoy>

As far as crack in LA, read Gary Webb's Dark Alliance series of articles published in the San Jose Mercury News in '96. <http://www.narconews.com/darkalliance/drugs/start.htm> The series was a well crafted piece of work, but also a grand example of journalistic caving on the part of the Mercury News. Funny how Webb was found dead with not one, but two taps to the head, yet his death was ruled a suicide. A brief bio of Webb.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb>

Another interesting history along these lines is Martin Lee's book Acid Dreams, detailing the CIA's involvement with psychedelic and other drugs. <http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-Sixties/dp/0802130623> Martin Lee's bio <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_A._Lee>

These are all respected, conscientious academics and journalists. Their work is corroborated by other people and papers, including information released by various government agencies over the years(A good starting place is to look at the findings of the Church Committee back in 1976).

As far as the question "who, exactly", well, in many cases that's the kicker. While various lower level folks have taken the fall for various misdeeds (Oliver North being the most well known), the fact of the matter is that the question of who is not known and may not be known for a long time, if ever. In many cases the best you can do is assign the blame to an agency like the CIA, which gets slapped on the wrist, reorganizes operations and moves on.

Can we say the president knows this, perhaps in some cases throughout the years. Bush the Elder's long involvement with the CIA leads me to believe he was a fairly hands on type of person when it came to these matters, especially when he was serving under Reagan. Many credible speculations have posited that Iran Contra led back to Bush Sr. and that is why North took the fall (and came out surprisingly well, a darling of the right and beneficiary of the right's media machine). But in the end, the question you ask is one that echoes down the pages of history.

[CountAllVotes]

3. oil + pipeline = Afghanistan

same goal different year.

Time to get the hell out now!

:kick:

[Goldstein1984]

4. I don't remember

President Obama mentioning access to fossil fuels and other minerals when he made the case for war in Afghanistan during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

But who could have guessed there might be sources of fossil fuels so close to other sources of fossil fuels?

[Odin2005]

7. Absolutely Nuthin'.

[MadHound]

8. Worse than that,

If we continue the pattern that is playing out in Iraq, we will have fought a war for resources, only to continue to play the muscle role as our creditor, China, comes in and makes off with the resources. When somebody owns your debt, you've got to dance to their tune.

[Zontor]

9. We have lost sight.

We should be fighting to stabilize the nation. An Islamic or secular representative government is the goal. They can keep their resources. We should be fighting to prevent Muslim extremists from having a base of power. My statement begs the question of 'what do we do about nation X'. I realize this. That is my slippery slope. I didn't support the war in Iraq. I did support the war in Afghanistan. What I asked of my representatives and what we received were two different things. Republicans were waving that bloody shirt of 9/11. But when it came down to it they had no idea of what it took to win.

Religious extremism isn't going away. Between the Christian neo-cons in the Western world and Wahhabists in the Eastern world both will insure prophecy is fulfilled. All are in danger.

[Octafish]

10. Mebbe $3 Trillion in Minerals

Wouldn't that be a coincidence if it really ends up belonging to someone who's not Afghani? Like "finder's keepers."

[applegrove]

11. Do you honestly think the Taliban or Al Qaeda would share the resources

with women?

[AlabamaLibrul]

12. Do you honestly think corporations would share the resources with anyone in Afghanistan? n/t