How would you know those 2 things?

wiki said so?

Honestly, I didn't read the links, I was just being a smartass.

There are a number of places we are doing something, it's just not in the news. The main difference is, each of those places had a central government, and an army, we are working with. Afghanistan is a whole different critter.

Agreed. I can name 10 places at least where we are actively involved.

I don't know those two things but I can still analyze a situation and come up with conclusions. It doesn't mean they are right, but what I support. I'm not going to write I think or IMO every time I make a statement.

But here is a basic analysis on the situation.

Facts about this scenario:
1) The US is not a moral state, but one that acts out on its self-interests. Every legitimate nation does this.
2) Shortage of resources will be a problem for the entire world in this century.
3) The US is not self-sustainable and will not be in the next century.
4) Afghanistan is in the middle of a highly strategic location, especially with regards to resources. Central Asia and Balochistan are two places with much economic potential.
5) Historically, Afghanistan is an extremely difficult if not impossible place for foreign occupiers to hold.
6) Current Islamic terrorism is an ideology that feeds on foreign occupation.

While our current method of combating anti-western terrorism does have its strategic benefits, I do not believe it is worth the effort we are putting in to it right now. Although, I believe that resources are going to be a very large problem in the next century and without proper strategic locations, it will be very difficult competing with the upcoming powers in Asia. So, by getting a hold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will have an edge over China, Russia, Iran, and India that we would not have without holding those nations.

If this is true, being upfront about it would have devastating effects on the US. It would basically be saying that we are killing thousands of people to exploit foreign resources while not do anything to be self-sufficient. It may be the best realistic solution according to greater US interests, but many US citizens will not see it that way. So, by making a lesser issue, giving Afghanistan freedoms and ridding of anti-western terrorist groups, a bigger one, it will be less likely to be criticized.


I just want to make it clear that I do not fully reject the possibility that we are in Afghanistan for the reasons given to us by Bush and Obama. I do think they are issues and we are legitimately working towards them but I do not think they are the biggest issue. It would also be a two birds with one stone scenario so its likely both issues are being worked at. I just believe that the resources issue will take priority over the freedom and terrorism issue.

Out of curiosity what do you guys think about Obama sending in another 30,000 troops? IIRC many were very upset that Bush escalated the troop numbers. Now that Obama has done essentially the same thing, do you all feel differently about it or ... ?

Ok. I think you have over analyzed it. But thanks for responding.

Politics pure and simple. If he didn't do it then he would lose much face. We are already in so he is not risking much politically by sending more troops. I am not sure the troops would agree with that assumption.

That may be true, there are other fully legitimate reasons for us being there, but if it isn't now, I still believe it will be an issue in the future.

For those who are interested, an article stating four reasons why the US should stay in Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...orth_the_fight

Frontline: Obama's War

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...=top5#morelink

I just want to say, I disagree with the idea that Afghanistan can be a strong point or asset in any kind of global political struggle a la Kipling's Great Game. I think it is a liability that will bleed any foreign power that moves into it, until they get tired of the bleeding and go home with loss of prestige, resources, opportunities, and human lives.
The only time the west ever got a benefit from it was when the soviets got tangled up there, and we supported the anti-soviet fighters; but even that turned around and bit us on the bum 15 years later.

I must agree. The idea that Afghanistan is somehow pivotable to having power and influence in the region is a huge overstatement. Given the countries history I doubt anything meaningful or long lasting will come out of a long term obligation of pseudo-nation building will work out for us in the long run. If there is any place we should step back and re-evalutate our long term goals I would think it is here. This little surge will have but a temporizing effect and in 10 or 20 years it will be just like it was before, fuedal and generally living like they have for the last 200.

I think Pierce's thinking is a little too limited, too early-twentieth-century in its framing. He's not thinking in terms of the dramatic globalization that is the salient feature of the world's economy. Globalization makes talk of a nation not being "self sufficient/sustainable" moot.

What this globalization does always mean is we will continue our national policy of insistence upon free trade, everywhere, always, and to the maximum possible, just as we've done since before 1783.

That temporizing effect is all that's expected, that's why a withdrawal was included in the plan. A chance for McCrystal to execute his plan to take Afghanistan out of the picture, while Pakistan gets their shit together. McCrystal may succeed, but I've no faith in Pakistan.
If through some miracle Pakistan does succeed in taming the border region, I doubt anyone cares what happens in Afghanistan after that. Let the taliban control the hinterlands, if we perceive them to becoming a problem for us, as in terrorist training camps, we have Predators.

People were upset when Bush sent more troops to Iraq. People were upset about anything to do with a war with Iraq, because it is not a justifyable war.

If we're going to do a war, we should do it overwhelmingly. I'm all for sending more troops. I believe it will make it safer for all the allied troops that are there.

What the US does well is invade. We don't do occupation well. We ought to invade a country and immediatley pull out. We shouldn't occupy or rebuild. Rebuilding only teaches other nations that if they need new infrastructure, they should fly some jets into American skyscrapers. After we invade and pull out, we monitor the response - if the country doesn't change, we can always reinvade, and pull out again. It's war interruptus.