Afghanistan: a war that can't be won
- Thread starter tamarin
- Start date
Well, certainly the UN gave a mandate when it granted permission to invade Afghanistan.
So what was that mandate exactly? Get bin Laden? If so, then catching him willbe the definitin of victory.
Or was it getting the Taliban out of power? If so, we're already victorious, so why are we still there? Just to make sure they don't come back? If that's the case, then it's constant victory as long as the Taliban doesn't get back to power. So it's a waiting game for them.
Or mabe the mandate was to rebuild Afghanistan?
I don't know, but certainly the UN gave some kind of mandate when it let us in. So what was it?
So what was that mandate exactly? Get bin Laden? If so, then catching him willbe the definitin of victory.
Or was it getting the Taliban out of power? If so, we're already victorious, so why are we still there? Just to make sure they don't come back? If that's the case, then it's constant victory as long as the Taliban doesn't get back to power. So it's a waiting game for them.
Or mabe the mandate was to rebuild Afghanistan?
I don't know, but certainly the UN gave some kind of mandate when it let us in. So what was it?
Tamarin Greetings!
During the upheaval caused by the public’s reaction to America sustaining terrible losses during the Viet Nam war, a cub reporter for a large American daily asked a senator or congressman, (I can’t remember which), if the decision at that point in the conflict to increase air support and increase troop strengths was indicative of America’s “commitment” to securing South East Asia from the communists…..
This official responded: “Consider your morning breakfast of eggs and bacon…” “ The chicken was ‘involved’ however the pig was ‘committed’.
Making a commitment to “fight communism” cost American families sons fathers and brothers and to what end?
I think we have to agree on exactly what the “mission” is in Afghanistan before we can assess the relative merits or pitfalls in continuing our involvement. If we examine the history of British and Russian involvement in that nation, we can safely conclude that this unfortunate nation’s thousand+ years of war (both civil and foisted upon them by external forces) ought to teach us to weigh the “benefits” carefully.
As early as 1998 the United States was employing cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and depending on who’s fielding the question, it was either to… “fight the spread of communism”, (the favorite chant of neo-conservative’s unwilling to loose their grip on a perfectly good legitimization for prosecuting wars all over the world) or it was about securing American interests in petroleum.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#33
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
“Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets.
The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
According to our calculations, total foreign direct investment in Kazakhstan's oil and gas sector from 1991 through 1996 was approximately U.S. $2 billion. Total commitments for new, future direct investment in Kazakhstan's oil and gas development now stands at over U.S. $35 billion. The Tengiz field has estimated reserves of 24 billion barrels of crude oil and over 1800 billion cubic meters of associated natural gas. Oil production has slowly risen to its current level of approximately 160,000 barrels per day. Production is currently being hampered by limited access to export pipelines. Once the Caspian Pipeline Consortium pipeline is constructed, oil production from Tengiz is expected to increase to 750,000 barrels per day by 2010. Even at production of 160,000 barrels per day, the venture has been profitable. Tengizchevroil, the consortium producing the Tengiz field, reported profits of U.S. $80 million in 1996, up from only U.S. $1 million in 1995.”
We also can conclude that the United States has demonstrated that it was and is prepared to take whatever measures it deems necessary to secure America’s petroleum interests in the region…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/207183.stm
Although our good American “friends” would have nations rally to the “cause” of “fighting terrorism” by committing to military intervention in Afghanistan, there has never been a similar dirty little war propelled and funded by the American petroleum cartels anywhere else in the world under the aegis of “to bring peace and democracy…”, which isn’t to say of course that there haven’t been these dirty little “petro wars” conducted all over the surface of this planet in the name of securing control over sovereign nations petroleum resources by this very same American petroleum cartel.
Typical of the American penchant for obfuscation (transitive and intransitive verb make something obscure: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated) because America armed the mujahideen ostensibly to battle the Russians, and then along comes Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban regime promoting their brand of Islamic fundamentalism, the “cause” was artfully re-crafted to that of “fighting terrorism” as opposed to simply another iteration of America living up to its cowboy ancestry of theft and violence.
The hobnail boots of American industry have echoed all over the world and now Stephen Harper’s sycophancy (he is when all is said and done a wannabe American) has placed Canadian service personnel in the gun sights of a people who’ve seen their nation attacked and plundered by Russia Britain and America over the span of several decades.
Sure we can go on killing Afghani men women and children and tell ourselves we’re fighting for democracy and freedom or we can acknowledge the truth.
During the upheaval caused by the public’s reaction to America sustaining terrible losses during the Viet Nam war, a cub reporter for a large American daily asked a senator or congressman, (I can’t remember which), if the decision at that point in the conflict to increase air support and increase troop strengths was indicative of America’s “commitment” to securing South East Asia from the communists…..
This official responded: “Consider your morning breakfast of eggs and bacon…” “ The chicken was ‘involved’ however the pig was ‘committed’.
Making a commitment to “fight communism” cost American families sons fathers and brothers and to what end?
I think we have to agree on exactly what the “mission” is in Afghanistan before we can assess the relative merits or pitfalls in continuing our involvement. If we examine the history of British and Russian involvement in that nation, we can safely conclude that this unfortunate nation’s thousand+ years of war (both civil and foisted upon them by external forces) ought to teach us to weigh the “benefits” carefully.
As early as 1998 the United States was employing cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and depending on who’s fielding the question, it was either to… “fight the spread of communism”, (the favorite chant of neo-conservative’s unwilling to loose their grip on a perfectly good legitimization for prosecuting wars all over the world) or it was about securing American interests in petroleum.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#33
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
“Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets.
The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
According to our calculations, total foreign direct investment in Kazakhstan's oil and gas sector from 1991 through 1996 was approximately U.S. $2 billion. Total commitments for new, future direct investment in Kazakhstan's oil and gas development now stands at over U.S. $35 billion. The Tengiz field has estimated reserves of 24 billion barrels of crude oil and over 1800 billion cubic meters of associated natural gas. Oil production has slowly risen to its current level of approximately 160,000 barrels per day. Production is currently being hampered by limited access to export pipelines. Once the Caspian Pipeline Consortium pipeline is constructed, oil production from Tengiz is expected to increase to 750,000 barrels per day by 2010. Even at production of 160,000 barrels per day, the venture has been profitable. Tengizchevroil, the consortium producing the Tengiz field, reported profits of U.S. $80 million in 1996, up from only U.S. $1 million in 1995.”
We also can conclude that the United States has demonstrated that it was and is prepared to take whatever measures it deems necessary to secure America’s petroleum interests in the region…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/207183.stm
Although our good American “friends” would have nations rally to the “cause” of “fighting terrorism” by committing to military intervention in Afghanistan, there has never been a similar dirty little war propelled and funded by the American petroleum cartels anywhere else in the world under the aegis of “to bring peace and democracy…”, which isn’t to say of course that there haven’t been these dirty little “petro wars” conducted all over the surface of this planet in the name of securing control over sovereign nations petroleum resources by this very same American petroleum cartel.
Typical of the American penchant for obfuscation (transitive and intransitive verb make something obscure: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated) because America armed the mujahideen ostensibly to battle the Russians, and then along comes Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban regime promoting their brand of Islamic fundamentalism, the “cause” was artfully re-crafted to that of “fighting terrorism” as opposed to simply another iteration of America living up to its cowboy ancestry of theft and violence.
The hobnail boots of American industry have echoed all over the world and now Stephen Harper’s sycophancy (he is when all is said and done a wannabe American) has placed Canadian service personnel in the gun sights of a people who’ve seen their nation attacked and plundered by Russia Britain and America over the span of several decades.
Sure we can go on killing Afghani men women and children and tell ourselves we’re fighting for democracy and freedom or we can acknowledge the truth.
Resolution 1378 (2001) makes a good place to start if you're looking for a mandate.
"Encourages Member States to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and in particular to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital for all the Afghan people, and especially to protect civilians, transitional authorities, United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations;"
"Encourages Member States to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and in particular to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital for all the Afghan people, and especially to protect civilians, transitional authorities, United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations;"
Why can't people support the Afghan Mission. It has evolved from getting Osama, and it is to get rid of a brutal regime.
I think not said:
Well I am known to be against the Iraq mission and a few things America has done.
However this mission is to get Osama.
And to save people who have been in war for 25 years, a pawn between the Americans and Soviets. Also the Taliban killed thousands and are filled with murdered and rapists not very nice people. So if we wouldn't want them to run Canada. Why should they have them control them. Its U.N approved. Whats the problem.
I think I'm finding alot about people. They say they support the troops. But when you go overseas, especially with America, even though we will join Nato its a no-go.
BitWhys Greetings!
Poppy fields supply opium to satisfy the appetites of people who can afford to purchase them. Yes there is a market for opium as a pharmaceutical commodity but guess who's in control of this multi-billion dollar industry...think Petroleum...
To believe that the criminal acts targetting the WTC don't reflect on American foreign policy as dictated by big drugs and big petroleum is like imagining that big sugar played no role in destroying Haiti.
As long as Harper and by default "Canadians" stand and salute the American "cause" there won't ever be any "sensible" solution to any conflict involving the American industrial complex.
Poppy fields supply opium to satisfy the appetites of people who can afford to purchase them. Yes there is a market for opium as a pharmaceutical commodity but guess who's in control of this multi-billion dollar industry...think Petroleum...
To believe that the criminal acts targetting the WTC don't reflect on American foreign policy as dictated by big drugs and big petroleum is like imagining that big sugar played no role in destroying Haiti.
As long as Harper and by default "Canadians" stand and salute the American "cause" there won't ever be any "sensible" solution to any conflict involving the American industrial complex.
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won
Here's the thought turn the opium into morphine its the exact same thing. Instead of drugs illegal. Turn it into a useful drug that can help people and pay them that.
MikeyDB said:
Here's the thought turn the opium into morphine its the exact same thing. Instead of drugs illegal. Turn it into a useful drug that can help people and pay them that.
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won
Let's not forget Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Estee Lauder and my favorite, Playboy.
MikeyDB said:
Let's not forget Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Estee Lauder and my favorite, Playboy.
Re: RE: Afghanistan: a war that can't be won
That's being worked on via the UN, the fringe left forgets to mention that.
Jersay said:
That's being worked on via the UN, the fringe left forgets to mention that.
So the U.N is doing that. Well, i think that is a good sign. Because other crops don't provide as much money so pay them for morphine. Good, hopefully that will change them from making illegal drugs.
BitWhys said:
Thanks. So now we have our mandate. So I suppose if that's being accomplished, then mission well done. if not, then let's send in however many troops as might be needed, within the limitations of international law of course.
RE: Afghanistan: a war th
The poppy production was never part of the mission so I don't see how that's an indicator that the missions is failing.
As to the article, I've read plenty of articles, blogs, documentaries and posts that all make great arguments as to why Afghanistan would never be stable or democratic, but the one referenced here isn't one of them.
Almost without fail, the logic of these arguments always seems to come down to the same thing:
"They could never be stable; they could never have a democracy; they could never be "civilized". Why?
Because they never have before."
When you break it down like that to it's most basic logic, well it turns out to not be that logical at all.
.
The poppy production was never part of the mission so I don't see how that's an indicator that the missions is failing.
As to the article, I've read plenty of articles, blogs, documentaries and posts that all make great arguments as to why Afghanistan would never be stable or democratic, but the one referenced here isn't one of them.
Almost without fail, the logic of these arguments always seems to come down to the same thing:
"They could never be stable; they could never have a democracy; they could never be "civilized". Why?
Because they never have before."
When you break it down like that to it's most basic logic, well it turns out to not be that logical at all.
.