Why Is The Afghanistan War Being Fought?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

Why Is The Afghanistan War Being Fought?
posted with permission from http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com

President Obama calls this war "a necessity," but what does that mean? This war is nearly 9 years old, the longest war in U.S. history. Why is it being fought? How does it serve the U.S.'s interests? How does it help the 9/11 families? How does it benefit the Afghan people?

What is the U.S.'s strategy there? So far, it is endless war. To date, 962 American soldiers have been killed there and thousands of Afghan men, women and children as well. And those numbers keep growing. Why is this war allowed to continue?

Even with heavy U.S. military censorship, we learn of U.S. drone attacks that destroy Afghan and Pakistani villages, killing or maiming ever more victims. The survivors are left to bury their family members and to forage for food and shelter. Would any of us wish this for ourselves and our families?

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan since President Bush directed the U.S. invasion and occupation, calling it "Operation Enduring Freedom." But as there is widespread belief Afghan President Karzai rigged the last election, and is kept in power by the U.S. military, where is the "Freedom?"

That Mr. Karzai's government is corrupt and riddled with drug lords is well known and to defend it, is it worth the lives of America's soldiers?

Why not ask the Afghan people what they would like? If they want a U.S. presence at all, it might be for doctors, nurses and teachers.

Is this U.S. military occupation preventing another 9/11? Of course not. Even in Los Angeles for example, with a powerful police presence and a strong judiciary, there is no end to the criminality. Why would anyone think the situation could be better in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other nation the U.S. might invade and occupy?

As for the U.S.'s declared enemies, Al-Qaeda has become a global organization. They fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and could fight from Chicago and even New York City. The Taliban is now also entrenched far beyond Afghanistan. One could make a strong case the U.S. wars have played a key role in the growth of its enemies.

What is the solution? As the perpetrator and occupier, the U.S. could call for a cease fire and negotiate a settlement. The Afghan people would then govern their nation and the U.S. could bring its soldiers home safely to their families and save hundreds of billions of dollars desperately needed in America.

[tekisui]

1. War (especially this war) is far too lucrative for far too many to cease.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

3. Good point....

Wow, You read fast!
:hi:

[Robb]

2. Who's defending Karzai's government?

...Other than GOP talking heads?

[Cleobulus]

6. We are, militarily and economically...

Yes, the U.S. government is criticizing his government heavily, doesn't change the fact that we have to support it for any type of stability to be attained. Its either that or we can perform another regime change, but there is no guarantee any new government would be any more "Pro-American" than the last regime.

We are not going to be able to route out the corruption in the Afghanistan government any other way, and frankly I do not see Afghanistan turning into a democracy any time soon, even if it is one, on paper. At most, we may be able to have a pro-US dictator of that country, perhaps Karzai, perhaps someone else.

[NJmaverick]

7. That's only one of many factual mistakes

first of Vietnam was considerably longer than this conflict

secondly the Drones do not "destroy villages" they attack single targets, such as a building or a vehicle, with precision guided weapons.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

11. You are nit-picking...

I live in a village of 2,300 in the mountains of Colorado, and if a few drones blew up main street, I'd feel like my "Village" was destroyed. But what is your answer to the main question?

Why Is The Afghanistan War Being Fought?

[NJmaverick]

16. No I am demanding honest and accurate reporting of the facts

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

25. OK, fair enough....

Now, why is the really, really long war in Afghanistan (but not as long as Vietnam) being fought?

[walldude]

24. One in 3 people killed by drones in Pakistan a civillian

http://networkedblogs.com/p29012959

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/up-to-320-civilians-killed-in-pakistan-drone-war-report/


http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=1789

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/02/us-killed-700-civilians-in-pakistan-drone-strikes-in-2009/

There's your facts. 1 in 3 30% Yeah real precision there. I guess those damn ungrateful civilians should just get out of the way.

[sabrina 1]

29. 'precision guided weapons'

What kind of precision was involved in the killing of over 700 civilians in Pakistan in 2009 eg?

The question was 'what are we doing there'. The answer seems to be 'killing people'. But since it's precision killing it's okay.

So far our precision killing has killed thousands of Afghans and 1.3 million Iraqis. Do we do precision torture also?

All this killing has strengthened terrorist organizations around the world. After the invasion of Iraq, terror attacks worldwide rose to the point that the government stopped reporting on them.

But then, the safety of the American people is not the reason for these wars so who cares?

Noted that you cannot answer the question 'what are we doing there'. Don't worry, neither can anyone else.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

39. Thank you, sabrina..

Excellent additions to the thread
:hi:

[Echo In Light]

4. .

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

9. That graphic you posted really sums it all up...

although it neglects to add a side order of death, suffering and destruction.

[Echo In Light]

13. Thanks ... and ...

[mdmc]

5. War is the force that defines us

Obama cannot stop the war..
War is profit..
To cut and run = defeat..

[NJmaverick]

8. Lots of factual errors in this blog

Vietnam was longer

Drones use precision weapons to target a building or a vehicle, not villages as this misguided author believes.

[Cleobulus]

10. Yeah, ok, blow up a building or vehicle and it affects nothing but that building...

or vehicle, yeah right. :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

12. So it's OK to make things up?

[Cleobulus]

15. No, but then again, it doesn't help to downplay the effects of such...

"precision" bombing. The overall affect in some cases is that the village is still bombed, and can be severely damaged by said bombing.

[NJmaverick]

17. Facts matter, you report accurately and honestly and let the reader decide

anything short of that is simply wrong

[Cleobulus]

22. An honest reporting of the facts would involve you admitting...

that the "precision" bombing isn't so precise, that in many cases, the village itself can be devastated in said bombing, and that civilian casualties still result from said bombing.

You aren't interested in accurate reporting, what you are interested in is a reporting that supports your pro-war stance.

[sabrina 1]

37. So from now on, you will not be making the false claim

that we do 'precision killing' a deceptive phrase meant to imply that we only kill the bad guys, as that would not be accurate or honest. Good, that would improve your credibility slightly.

[sabrina 1]

36. Your claim that we do 'precision killing '

was making things up, obviously ~

To answer YOUR question, it is NOT okay to make things up. Precision killing is a made-up claim by you. It is also against our laws and international law to assassinate political leaders or anyone for that matter.

A word of advice about tactics. The old trick of answering a question with a question, actually answers the question you didn't want answer in the first place. By using that tactic to avoid the fact pointed out to you, you agreed that it was you who was making things up by your silly and ghoulish claim of 'precision killing'. As if that was alright to begin with.

Don't thank me, I like political adversaries to at least be good at what they do.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

14. Thank you..

See my reply #11, upthread.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

19. Would it make you feel better if the author had stated...

"This war has lasted a really, really. really long time?

[NJmaverick]

20. I would be happy if the author had reported the facts accurately and honestly

so the reader can make a properly informed opinion.

[ixion]

18. $

.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Same reason Johnson went into Vietnam

Democrats are the "soft on defense" party and have been ever since Eisenhower and McCarthy accused them of that. Democratic Presidents then get themselves into military conflicts that they don't want to be in, in order to try and neutralize this Republican accusation.

[indepat]

43. Since McCarthy, most Dems have been so afraid of soiling their pants if labeled

weak on national defense, or soft on communism, crime, drugs, and now terra that they almost always cave to a far-RW-agenda: surely everyone sees where this has brought us today as a nation, an economy, and a people. :-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Just like Vietnam and Iraq. Favorable PR to show a Dem president is "tough".

Not tough enough to stand up to the MIC but it serves to make the "land of the brave" feel safe in the face of the Big, Scary, Bogeyman.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

28. Well, if you are correct...

Then the blood of our children, and the children of the country we are engaged in war with, is simply too high a price to pay for favorable PR.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Well, the politicians will arrange a nice monument to the dead...

and stand in front of it with crocodile tears streaming, and flag pins shining, while they give speeches about "sacrifice" when they prepare the populace for the next "necessary" war.

[ShortnFiery]

26. To prop up an illegitimate puppet who will ensure management of an Oil Pipeline as well

as serve as a platform to launch our future air strikes on the Nation of Iran, i.e., geopolitics.

The ruling political class have already written the scripts. Now it's up to the PsyOps and M$M to manufacture consent.

Onward Christian Soldiers!?!

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-1984_instruction_manual.jpg http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-hamid_karzai.jpg

[Echo In Light]

27. And don't forget ...

[ShortnFiery]

32. Oh thanks ... I forgot to add that Afghanistan is a decentralize tribal narco-state.

:blush:

[Echo In Light]

35. Peter Dale Scott: Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina

http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Oil-War-Afghanistan-Indochina/dp/0742525228/ref=pd_sim_b_3

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

30. "Now it's up to the PsyOps and M$M to manufacture consent."

Wow, ShortnFiery...you leave me speechless. Great points!

[ShortnFiery]

33. I hope that my impression is wrong.

But I wasn't wrong about the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let's hope that we can LEGALLY raise enough dissent counter arguments that they don't dare follow-through?

[cutlassmama]

41. This is the correct answer

[damntexdem]

34. Because:

1) the Taliban refused to settle it via a Rugby match?
2) Al Qaida didn't want to contest it in Antarctica -- but Afghanistan was about the same place alphabetically?
3) a pillow fight just didn't seem to be macho enough?
4) the Bushistas screwed up what was a reasonable response to the 9/11 attacks?

I leave it to you to choose one or more.

[FarCenter]

38. The core idea was to build a pipeline from Uzbeckistan to the Indian Ocean

via Afghanistan and western Pakistan.

This would allow the Anglo-American oil companies to tap the Central Asian oil fields.

[DailyGrind51]

40. Because the "military-industrial complex" demands it!

Not even "change you can believe in" will mess with the M.I.C.!

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

42. What is the solution?

How do we put a stop to "endless war"?

[troubledamerican]

44. Russia: "U.S. is trafficking Afghan heroin"

http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Says_US_Colluding_With_Afghan_Drug_Trade/1995972.html

[Echo In Light]

46. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8136776&mesg_id=8137242

[troubledamerican]

47. Yes. If you haven't heard these PDS interviews

you may be interested.

http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/4136 -- oil, drugs & war

http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/3034 -- plan colombia

http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/2641 -- plan colombia 2

http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/7416 -- oil, drugs & war 2

[troubledamerican]

45. NATO refuses Russia request to destroy Afghan opium fields

http://spitfirelist.com/news/nato-refuses-russian-request-to-destroy-afghan-opium-fields/

[wordpix]

48. because instead of capturing bin Laden at Tora Bora, * outsourced the job to the locals

and took US troops to Iraq---remember?

Nine yrs. later we're bogged down again in Afghanist-nam. The US never learns, not even Obama, who's bright.

[rug]

49. A campaign promise.

[amborin]

50. guess "it's a necessity" for the military industrial complex; otherwise, a morass at troops' expense

[sad sally]

51. War must be continued because the weapons the US military and

all other friendly and enemy countries we sell them to kill and destroy make up most of the manufacturing left in the US. If all these various weapons of mass destruction were no longer needed, well, one can only guess the unemployment it would create. Can you imagine the world without such destructive items? I can...