News What is ''the mission'' in Afghanistan?

[BobG]

The reason for talking about Muslim countries together is that Muslims, by and large, are quite devout and view religion as very important in their lives, to a degree unimaginable by most Westerners. Of course there are exceptions, but our continued military presence on Muslim soil is seen as an affront to Islam, something which a righteous Muslim must defend against.

I'd suggest you read the book Imperial Hubris for a more detailed accounting of it.

I wonder how the author backed up those conclusions. I think there is some support for the idea that Muslims in the Middle East take their religion more seriously than Christians in the Western world - especially if the Western world encompasses Europe. But the last statement seems pretty extreme and seems to suggest that every good Muslim is a terrorist.

In reality: Muslim and Western attitudes towards each other

In Middle Eastern countries, the only group more likely to identify more with their nationality than their religion is Palestinians, which don't have their own country, but want one. And, by Middle East countries, I include Israel which is physically located in the Middle East and its residents are more likely to identify themselves by their religion than their nationality.

The only Western group where as many people identify themselves by their religion as identify themselves by their nationality is the US (which goes a long way to explain the appeal of someone like Santorum).

When it comes to Islamic extremism, residents of Muslim countries seem as concerned as residents of Western countries.

And when it comes to views about other religions, aside from Pakistan and Turkey, most Muslim countries' view of Christians is about the same as Israel's view of Christians and about the same as Americans' views about Muslims. (Muslim countries' views on Jews, however, is really, really bad.)

On the other hand, less than 30% of people in Muslim countries believe that Arabs conducted the attacks on 9/11 and Muslims do feel that Americans and Europeans are hostile towards Muslims (this, in spite of the fact that, except for Germany and Spain, more than 50% of people in Western countries had a favorable view of Muslims). Perceptions aren't always reality.

 

[ThomasT]

The US is in Afghanistan for heroin and minerals? Unfortunately, you have been misled by those sources. It is well known that the US in Afghanistan for the women. Settling on a price is taking quite some time.

Sarcasm noted. Point taken. My guess is that the US mission in Afghanistan in somewhat multi-layered.

To think that the main purpose is the promulgation of democracy is, imho, absurdly naive. Not that I think you think that.

EDIT: I should note that I think that our involvement in Afghanistan, given enough time and resources, could result in a better way of life, and a freedom that the Afghan people haven't historically enjoyed. But, it seems, the US will be, mostly, pulling out of there in a couple of years. So, what will 12 years of occupation and conflict have achieved? I don't know.

 

[jim hardy]

credit to http://thepowerofthefrontcover.file...85-afghan-girl-national-geographic1.jpg?w=600

more seriously though,
as standards of living increase worldwide so does our consumption of basic materials.
The whole region is rich in resources - fuel(uranium & oil), fertilizer(phosphates), minerals, it's a sort of cornucopia.

China, India and west will compete for them.
Hopefully in a businesslike fashion.
I assume that's the end goal.

 

[Dotini]

What is ''the mission'' in Afghanistan? What do supporters of the war imagine will be achieved by 5 or 10 more years of war?

Do we want to just keep fighting until the Afghans bend over and accept U.S. occupation without retaliation?

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).

Well 12 years of occupation might result in the afghan government being more 'western friendly' and allow western corporations(mining companies) to extract the natural resources in the country.

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? There we would find abundant gold, oil and gas, uranium, rare-Earth's and other minerals, vast stands of timber, copious fresh water, viable fisheries, huge herds of cattle, arable land, and the polar access not available in Afghanistan.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ThomasT]

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.

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]

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]

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/pointer/back/journals/1998/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]

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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

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/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-Earth's

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]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-Earth's

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.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3820384&postcount=33

 

[Office_Shredder]

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]

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.

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 don't 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]

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/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

Opium production is one of the means insurgent groups raise money for their insurrections (and not just in Afghanistan).

The Taliban made it a point to crack down heavily on opium production to starve its rival groups of money and was surprisingly successful. But their success would be the exception; not the country's rate of production during the US occupation.

And, of course, now that the Taliban is one of the insurgent groups, it relies on the same drug trade it had managed to suppress.

Long term, there has to be an economic alternative to opium production for rurual Afghanistan residents. The lack of that economic alternative is a reason that country is in the state its in.

Major crackdowns (such as the Taliban's) only work temporarily and wouldn't work well at all for an outside force (such as the US or NATO). A major crackdown by an outside force would just be invaders oppressing the residents and driving them into poverty.

Opium production is a sign of how effective or ineffective the US occupation has been. But, suggesting a US departure would lower opium production is a gross overstatement.

 

[mheslep]

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.

How would the removal of US/NATO troops make the heroin/poppy problem better? If the Taliban takes over again, they *might* return to banning Poppy and chopping off the hands/legs/heads of the growers. Is that better?

 

[jim hardy]

Posts: 19,305


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

__________________
www.russsscope.net

and the universe replied,

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

 

[russ_watters]

and the universe replied,

Oy, thanks for pointing that out! I had a credit card # stolen a few weeks ago and haven't updated the website in a year since getting a new email address, so they couldn't notify me I hadn't paid my bill! Hope i don't lose my domain name!

 

[BobG]

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!

This is "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy.

Tapping into and selling those resources are Afghanistan's only real chance to achieve some economic stability - an economic stability that would make political stability more desirable to the different groups in Afghanistan. Without some economic stability (based on something more substantial than opium production), there's no reason, nor any hope for the different Aghani factions to participate in a government run by a rival.

But, if Western countries help Afghanistan tap into those resources and buy those resources, then those resources must have been the real reason for invading.

Helping Afghanistan become economically self-sufficient is about the only good thing Western countries could do for Afghanistan. (Not that Afghanistan's economy should the primary reason for the US military to throw out the Taliban - the military should be used to further US strategic objectives; not some other country's economic objectives.)

 

[russ_watters]

Helping Afghanistan become economically self-sufficient is about the only good thing Western countries could do for Afghanistan. (Not that Afghanistan's economy should the primary reason for the US military to throw out the Taliban - the military should be used to further US strategic objectives; not some other country's economic objectives.)

One need not attach any altruistic motive to the US's actions in Afghanistan*. While the potential outcome of the US's actions (if successful, of course) for ordinary Afghans is awesomely awesome, it isn't any reason - much less the primary one - for the US to still be there. It is nothing more than a recognition that it is in our long-term national security interest to see our conquered enemies become stable and prosperous. A stable, prosperous Afghanistan means no Taliban, no al Qaeda and a populace that has a good enough standard of living that they are too busy enjoying life to be hateful and look for people to blame for their poor quality of life. This isn't a new or unique idea:

When nationalism ruled the conduct of nations, the losers in war were typically punished, with the inevitable result being hatred and the desire for revenge. Wilson tried to change that way of thinking, and his limited success helped pave the way for Hitler's rise and WWII. But things did change after WWII and that change, IMO, had a lot to do with why there was no WWIII. Instead of punishing Germany, we rebuilt her and installed a friendly, democratic government and the world is a much better place because of it. But again, this was not done out of altruism: we did it for peace with Germany and through that, defense against the USSR in Europe. Still, the outcome for ordinary West Germans was unequivocably positive, as compared to what their Eastern counterparts got from the USSR. That's the difference between a true puppet (East Germany->USSR) and an ally (West Germany->USA).

*I am not one who believes that there are many actions that are fully altruistic: most actions contain benefit for the person doing them, even if that benefit is just to feel good about what they are doing. Still, some actions have limited benefit for those doing them and those actions are somewhat altruistic. That can even include war: I did once forward an idea I had for the West or just the US to pick a different roque government somewhere in the world every five years to be transformed into a democracy. IMO, that's just an assertive twist on the of the passive position we currently hold that has resulted in us entering perhaps a half dozen mostly altruistic wars over the past 20 years.

 

[jim hardy]

Gosh, i wish i'd said that.

If you heard Truman's speech where he said to effect "We're not going to punish and humiliate Germany and Japan. We're going to help them climb back to a respectable position in the world." it makes more sense.

He remembered why WW2 followed out of WW1 .

 

[Astronuc]

Something to think about -

Ahmed Rashid - Pakistan on the Brink (Pakistan and Afghanistan are inextricably linked)
http://wamc.drupal.publicbroadcasting.net/post/ahmed-rashid-pakistan-brink-0

Ahmed Rashid: Pakistan Lurches From Crisis To Crisis
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/20/148605645/ahmed-rashid-pakistan-lurches-from-crisis-to-crisis

 

[russ_watters]

and the universe replied,

Fixed!