What is ''the mission'' in Afghanistan?

*ThomasT*

Quote by Dotini

The ostensible purpose of the war in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a base from which terrorist attacks can be mounted against the United States.

That purpose has been fulfilled, but will require maintenance, i.e., ongoing occupation in the form of a chain of forts and airbases from which to suppress any detectable hostile activity. These can be garrisoned with a fraction of the current occupying force down in and near the villages. The strategy of winning hearts and minds and converting Afghans to democracy, consumerism et al has been vitiated by a variety of factors (to put it mildly).

Ok, this makes sense. I wonder how many US troops and contractors will remain in Afghanistan. Without the relatively large US presence that's there now it seems likely that the Taliban will regain a certain control. Will the US be able to "buy" them to a certain extent? I wonder.

Quote by Dotini

If acquiring minerals and other resources were really our mission, then wouldn't it make far more sense to invade and occupy nearby and weakly defended Canada?

I think the US had several reasons to be in Afghanistan. Maybe the least of which was natural resources. But a reason nonetheless.

And of course the US isn't going to invade and occupy Canada. Each, including Mexico, has at least a geographical vested interest in working together to solve common problems. Hopefully some severe measures will be taken to beat down the Mexican drug cartels.

Anyway, I wonder what the legacy of this period of US involvement with Afghanistan will be. So, fapp, I guess I'm asking the same question as the thread title. I really don't have any firm opinion on it. But my guess is that it couldn't just be Bin Laden and the terrorist thing.

russ_watters

Quote by ThomasT

So, fapp, I guess I'm asking the same question as the thread title. I really don't have any firm opinion on it. But my guess is that it couldn't just be Bin Laden and the terrorist thing.

Why not? Historically speaking, 9/11 stacks up pretty well against reasons for going into other wars. I'm not sure we ever had more Americans killed in such a precipitating event.

*ThomasT*

Quote by russ_watters

Why not? Historically speaking, 9/11 stacks up pretty well against reasons for going into other wars. I'm not sure we ever had more Americans killed in such a precipitating event.

I just think there's more to it than that. But, of course, I don't have any way of knowing.

jim hardy

One should be familiar with Harold Mackinder's "Heartland Theory"
and consider its probable influence on our Kissinger and Brzeszinski, and doubtless many others among our think-tank heavies.
Mackinder is credited with inventing geopolitics .

Search on this phrase : mackinder's heartland theory

This link has a decent summary though there's lots of others out there.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/point.../vol24_3/8.htm

A look at Map I perhaps illustrates matters more clearly. 'What Mackinder called in 1904 the "pivot area", he subsequently called the "heartland" by 1919. The "heart" of Mackinder's theory is contained in a famous and succinct dictum:

Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island'

Who rules the World-Island commands the World

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrategy

"For the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
—Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard[13]

Obama studied under Brzezinski at Columbia, i think it was.

As to "Why not invade Canada ? "
Geography.
It's not part of Mackinder's 'heartland' .

I'm not endorsing anything, just sharing with you what helped me make sense of the world scale craziness .

Jimmy Snyder

Quote by H. Mackinder

Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island'

Who rules the World-Island commands the World

It's a wonder the Soviet Union didn't win the cold war. They didn't even survive it. This is the reason we don't invade Canada?

BobG

The mission according to Obama:

I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.

The "prevent their return to either country in the future" is slightly vague. That could mean continued occupation of Afghanistan forever or it could mean doing so much damage to al Qaeda that it can't affectively return to any country.

But it is consistent with some differences in Obama's terminolgy and Bush's terminology. Bush referred to a war on terror, while Obama refers to a war specifically against al Qaeda. From the 2010 National Security Strategy

The United States is waging a global campaign against al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates. To disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates, we are pursuing a strategy that protects our homeland, secures the world’s most dangerous weapons and material, denies al-Qa’ida safe haven, and builds positive partnerships with Muslim communities around the world. Success requires a broad, sustained, and integrated campaign that judiciously applies every tool of American power—both military and civilian—as well as the concerted efforts of like-minded states and multilateral institutions.

We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out. Yet this is not a global war against a tactic—terrorism or a religion—Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.

Bush initially made it a major point to ensure it was clear that the war on terror was not a war on Islam, but, none the less, a war on 'terror' was vague enough for many people to rephrase it as a war against Islamic fundamentalism or a war against Islamic jihadists or a war against radical Islam, which is very easy for people to interpret as a war against Islam.

Obama's comments are much more focused on al Qaeda and that surprisingly had an affect on bin Laden. From The bin Laden Plot to Kill President Obama

The al-Qaeda brand had become a problem, bin Laden explained, because Obama administration officials “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,” and instead promoted a war against al-Qaeda. The organization’s full name was “Qaeda al-Jihad,” bin Laden noted, but in its shorthand version, “this name reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them.” He proposed 10 alternatives “that would not easily be shortened to a word that does not represent us.” His first recommendation was “Taifat al-tawhid wal-jihad,” or Monotheism and Jihad Group.

Bin Laden ruminated about “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere that had killed Muslims, even in mosques. He told Atiyah to warn every emir, or regional leader, to avoid these “unnecessary civilian casualties,” which were hurting the organization.

“Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].” Local al-Qaeda leaders should “apologize and be held responsible for what happened.”

I have a feeling it means we'll depart as soon as we feel we've done enough damage to al Qaeda, since the only practical benefit of being in Afghanistan is that it serves as a staging area for attacks against al Qaeda just over the border in Pakistan and because a war against the Taliban isn't mentioned as a part of our National Security Strategy.

edward

Afghanistan Holds Bounty of Rare Earths and Minerals

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...of-rare-earths

The USGS's exploration time has been strictly limited due to the deposit's location in the most dangerous part of the country, near the southern border with Pakistan. The geologists were delivered to the site in Black Hawk helicopters, and armed soldiers watched over them as they scoured the ground for clues.

I can't help but believe that the recent rare earth discoveries in Afghanistan have something to do with all of this entangled web.

mheslep

Quote by edward

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...of-rare-earths

I can't help but believe that the recent rare earth discoveries in Afghanistan have something to do with all of this entangled web.

My theory has just as much evidence.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...4&postcount=33

Office_Shredder

Quote by shashankac655

It doesn't take an expert to figure out that similar things are happening today, for example Libya except that didn't have a democracy(a good excuse for invading),

So who's the dictator that we installed in Lybia?

And countries like Syria don't get invaded when people are being killed even today, like you have said it in your own thread.

Isn't Syria the kind of place we would love to have a dictator who's friendly to us in? Explain the logic of why we don't overthrow him and install our own puppet government

russ_watters

Well I guess our reputation is improving: usta be assumed that the Evil Americans were invading to steal the resources. Now the Evil Americans are invading for the priveledge to buy the resources!

*shashankac655*

Quote by Office_Shredder

So who's the dictator that we installed in Lybia?

Right now the US is in talks with the rebels about rebuilding the infrastructure for oil extraction which was destroyed in order make libya depend on foreign investment, i don't know about all the decisions that will be taken in the future , if i find out ,i will tell you.

Quote by Office_Shredder

Isn't Syria the kind of place we would love to have a dictator who's friendly to us in? Explain the logic of why we don't overthrow him and install our own puppet government

Is Syria as rich as Libya ,Iran or Iraq in terms of oil? is it as rich as Afghanistan or Canada in terms of minerals?
Syria

Syria is a middle-income country, with an economy based on agriculture, oil, industry, and tourism. However, Syria's economy faces serious problems and challenges and impediments to growth, including: a large and poorly performing public sector; declining rates of oil production; widening non-oil deficit; wide scale corruption; weak financial and capital markets; and high rates of unemployment tied to a high population growth rate.[18]

.

jim hardy

the World was a very different place 60 years in terms of technology perhaps, not very different in terms of morality.

Chess is still chess.
Look at the map and remember WW2.
Iraq was the beach-head for Western influence, like Normandy. It was the only place left with a dictator who we'd put in power so was an expedient choice. Its neighbors wanted him gone and didn't object terribly..

Iran lies between Iraq and Afghanistan.
If west can keep some semblance of alliance there Iran is pinched between us - as was Germany pinched between US and USSR 70 years ago.
Check, but not checkmate.
Also it's pinch Pakistan between us and west-friendly India.

not very different in terms of morality"

Indeed some things just dont seem to change.
Observe the lesson of Hamlet.
The royal family was so distracted with their infighting and "plays within a play' they self-destruced and Fortinbras just took over.

Dysfunction is still dysfunction.

mheslep

Quote by jim hardy

Iraq was the beach-head for Western influence, like Normandy. It was the only place left with a dictator who we'd put in power so was an expedient choice. Its neighbors wanted him gone and didn't object terribly..

Who is "we"? Saddam Hussein gained a leadership position in the Bath'ist party in 1968, and took over the government in 1979. Please provide a source showing how "we" placed Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq. US CIA communication with Hussein during the cold war, if it occurred, or even tacit support of Hussein by the Kennedy administration is not the same as placing a dictator in power.

jim hardy

Please provide a source showing how "we" placed Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/aburish.html

There was a coup in Iraq in 1963. What do we know about the U.S. involvement in that coup?

The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. There is evidence that an electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the forces who were fighting Kassem. There is evidence that they supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup. And there was an exchange of information between the two sides. For example it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.

But you are correct, that's not directly 'placing him in power'.

Thanks for the catch .

mheslep

Quote by shashankac655

I feel like i am arguing with politicians (people who think their point of view is the only point of view and they don't even provide any good argument(or evidence) for the dismissal other points of view)....

No, I am not interested in everyone's point of view on the internet. I am interested in those that can be backed up with some valid arguments and main stream sources. You don't seem to be able to do either, so no I'm not interested.

*ThomasT*

Quote by mheslep

I suspect most the citizens of most Western countries that have had troops on the ground in Afghanistan (now ~2800 killed) are aware of the poppy/heroin problem in Afghanistan. If you or others have some recommendation to improve the problem in the context of the current reality I'm sure it will add productively to the thread.

Well, the solution to that particular problem might entail the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Which, apparently, is going to happen in the next two years.

I'm not saying there's a connection between the US occupation of Afghanistan and that country's rate of opium production. But the numbers suggest that that might be the case.

Quote by mheslep

This does not mean I am interested in hearing yet another conspiracy tale ...

Me either. As far as I'm concerned nobody is scheming or conspiring ... wrt anything. Especially not anybody affiliated with the US government, or any government for that matter.

russ_watters

Ok.....re-opened with a reminder that conspiracy theory is not allowed here.

Similar Threads for: What is ''the mission'' in Afghanistan?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Progress in Afghanistan	Current Events	275
UAE troops in afghanistan	Current Events	1
Afghanistan - a state of contradiction?	Current Events	11
Lasers used in Iraq and Afghanistan	Computing & Technology	3
Election in Afghanistan	Current Events	1

russ_watters Mentor	Well I guess our reputation is improving: usta be assumed that the Evil Americans were invading to steal the resources. Now the Evil Americans are invading for the priveledge to buy the resources!