Afghanistan occupation may go on and on…

Any of you who have read this blog previously know that I jumped on the bandwagon concerning the real reason we fight in Afghanistan years ago. Here is a post from 2010. As time goes by, more and more people are asking the question “why are we still in Afghanistan?”. Is it really to eradicate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Could it be the vast mineral riches buried there? I never bought into the Iraq logic in that we were there to take the oil. Strategic reasons however? Hmmm.  We aren’t in Afghanistan to secure all the minerals for ourselves either. We do, however, need those mineral deposits on the world market and not secured by nations such as Russia or China.

Lew Rockwell has a link up today from who has also been reporting on this idea for years. Seems the New York Times is also getting in on the questioning. The Soviets started mapping the mineral deposits in the 60’s. The British began in the 1800’s. American geologist’s discounted the value of the minerals back in the 40’s and 50’s leaving others to step in. The DOD has had a task force in place since 2006 to promote economic opportunities. Congress has heard testimony on the Hill since the late 90’s concerning accessing Afghanistan’s riches. Point is that knowledge of the deposits has been around for a long, long time. Of course, today’s mapping technologies are vastly improved  to further pinpoint the location and quantities available.

The bottom line is that we are essentially in a strategic war with Russia and China and precious metals, minerals, oil and gas play a big role. We can’t publicly admit that, however, as blood for minerals is not acceptable to the average American. The fact remains that if we pull out and allow the country to descend into another civil war with the Taliban as the arbiter of who gets the spoils, we risk placing ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage on a number of fronts. Your military personnel are not dying in the wastelands of Afghanistan for no reason, just not for the reasons advertised. Only the families can decide the legitimacy of that.

It would seem that the narrative is changing regarding Afghanistan as you’re now seeing the likes of Gen. David Petraeus going public with the notion that we can’t afford to pull out now. He points out in the clip that a “foundation of security” is a prerequisite for extracting Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. Who better to provide it than the world’s cop? I think we’ll continue to see a shift toward this reasoning to explain our ongoing presence. Once enough time has passed, it’s an easier sell to say that our mission there has evolved. I’ve always been a strong believer that U.S. foreign policy has been very Rahm Emanuel like in that we don’t allow a good crisis to go to waste. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples. Despite the lip service, I say we’ve had our agenda in place all along.

4 thoughts on “Afghanistan occupation may go on and on…”

  1. Damn i wish politicians would play straight with the public. To announce a change of mission at this late date will go over like a lead balloon. if we had done what i suggested in my post today; that is, if we had made war against Afghanistan instead of against terrorism, we could have killed all the al Qaeda and Taliban that we did kill and also attacck government structures. That way we could have force the government to the negotiating table, which would have included some spoils of war. A year ago I read that the USGS discovered what could be the world’s largest lithium deposit. We could have taken it and paid the Afghanis a fair royalty.

    You are right. We can not or should not leave these strategic minerals to Russia and China. The logistic over there are a real bitch and we don’t have a lor of what you could call friends in the area.

    Do you really think we had this in mind all along? Wow!

  2. Do you really think we had this in mind all along? Wow!

    Absolutely! Without question. Our long-range policy planners clearly factor in these types of issues everyday to see how best to mold policy to meet our agenda. This isn’t conspiratorial in any way. In fact, we would be negligent if we didn’t do this. The only issue here is the political decision on how to sell it. The evidence shows that the knowledge of the scale of resources available in Afghanistan has been known for many decades. Do you think it so far-fetched that when the President was contemplating the response to 9/11, he isn’t also presented with options as to how we could achieve our long-range agenda items concurrently? Otherwise, why we would not have seen what so many, including you and I, have called for which was to go in to Afghanistan with a massive military response and achieve our goals with-in days or weeks and minimum casualities? Yet we still sit here today asking why we are still there are no one can put forward a coherent explanation. I guarantee you as I write this, those same planners are assessing events around the globe and putting forward contingencies about how best to capitalize upon them should conditions further deteriorate say in Syria or Iran. I have always seen the U.S. as opportunistic. As the world’s only superpower and the world’s cop, we have to look wider and farther ahead than anyone else. It is entirely consistent with that outlook that we must always stand ready to enact policy that achieves multiple objectives simultaneously. The decision had to have been made that we couldn’t say to the world we are invading to seek justice against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as establishing a prescence necessary to ensure we have future access to resources. That makes us an occupier and is a non-starter. Doing it the way we did makes the transition we are seeing today plausible. Maybe I’m in the extreme minority on my thinking, but I believe as time goes on history will be on my side.

Comments are closed.