Why is the US in Afghanistan?

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

I can understand why America would want to invade Iraq (it's the oil), but as far as I know, Afghanistan doesn't produce much in the way of natural resources that the US really needs. Exactly how would an occupation of Afghanistan benefit America?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Three purposes.

1) To provide the US with a foothold for further military action in the middle east should it be deemed necessary.

2) To open up the Afghani market for exploitation by American capitalists.

3) To stir up nationalistic feelings of how "great" the US is amongst the American population while simultaneously teaching the people of the middle east that resistance to American imperialism will not be tolerated.

[commyrebel]

I also say its for america to show that we cant be stopped which i find funny because our supposed enemy isn't defined enough to actually put a stop to them and we are getting to the point of capitalism that imperialism starts to reign as our focus

[genstrike]

I remember going to a student anti-war conference and there was a presentation on the geopolitics of Afghanistan. Essentially, there are a few things there of interest, but most of it has to do with the location of Afghanistan and the potential for building or controlling transportation routes (which goes all the way back to the Great Game)

1. Afghanistan is in a strategic location. In modern times, you need to control the land as well as the sea in order to be successful as an imperialist power. In its central location, it can be part of a major connection between Europe/Russia and India/China. And having a foothold in a strategic location between two potential rival powers is a good thing strategically.

2. Afghanistan has a fairly underdeveloped transportation network and is close to a lot of other countries with a lot of resources. You could make a lot of money and have a lot of geopolitical power by building rail lines in Afghanistan, which has no real rail network to speak of.

3. The pipeline. Because of Afghanistan's positon with respect to the Caspian Sea, to get to the ocean any oil pipeline shipping from Turkmenistan or the areas surrounding the Caspian (Azerbaijan) would have to go through either Iran or Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-maybe India if it wants to load on a ship in the Indian Ocean.

4. Mineral resources. Afghanistan has quite a few mineral resources which mining companies could easily exploit. Of course, they would have to displace a lot of people and uproot a lot of communities to do so. And nothing displaces people and uproots communities like a civil war.

Essentially, it's another great game and the #1 imperialist power in the world isn't going to be left out.

It's funny though, generally unless they are known for having a lot of oil, a lot of people in the west tend to see other countries as lacking in resources and not worth anything to the imperialist powers. It must be a colonialist mentality that rubbed off on a lot of people.

[~Spectre]

The original plan probably included the usual "control the spigot" philsophy regarding troops around all the oil locations.

-Iran has oil, thus Afghanistan gives us a second front from which to threaten Iran.

-Neocons seem to be quite adamant about wanting to dominate any country outside of the U.S. sphere of influence, especially those with military forces capable of striking at Israel. This provides more incentive for surrounding Iran.

- The world is heading towards an energy crunch. The globe is already at peak oil production (we know this through 4d thermal imaging of the earth). and the overwhelmingly majority of all the remaining cheaply recoverable oil is in the M.E., thus major powers are all trying to position their pieces accordingly next to all the oil resources.

-Regarding the energy crunch, the Bush administration wanted very badly to develop a pipeline through Afghanistan for Turkmenistan's gas. They had several executives from Chevron and the like inside the adminsitration itself. A state department official pre-911 actually threatened the Taliban over this when they refused to negotiate. Funnily enough, the imperialists even bungled this part, since China has pretty much purchased Turkmenistan's gas and is making its own pipeline. China has bought most of Afghanistan's copper too.

-So why stay? Besides the strategic foothold, they want a chance to even the playing field a bit before negotiating. They realize that the Taliban have all the momentum, so they are trying to wait to get it back before they negotiate some sort of settlement. NATO is putting together around 500 million $ for this sort of bribery purpose, once the surged soldiers manage to stop the bleeding.

[Roquentin]

Initially, in the hysteria following 9/11 there was a big need to bomb some other country to keep the population happy. Afghanistan was the easiest way to provide that, and the Pashtun backed Taliban, which the US installed in the first place, had very few allies, much less any that would do anything about an attack. Not only that, you had the Bush administration, which needed a way for the military-industrial complex, private contractors first and foremost from that bunch, to make some cash. If there's a financial motivation it's that. The process is really pretty simple. Start a war in a country that appears on the surface to be an easy victory and get plugged into billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars.

It's like Lenin said, "Who is doing what to whom?" Who is getting rich off of this? The people who supply military equipment and provide private security in Afghanistan. There doesn't need to be much in the way of tactical importance in the country itself, because they get paid no matter how badly the war goes. In fact, dragging the war out fattens their budgets.

[~Spectre]

Apparently according to Karzai, a U.S. geological survey will reveal Afghanistan to have around $1 trillion dollars worth of resources, including petroleum:



Afghan ‘Geological Reserves Worth A Trillion Dollars’
KABUL - Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, is sitting on mineral and petroleum reserves worth an estimated one trillion dollars, President Hamid Karzai said Sunday. The war-ravaged nation could become one of the richest in the world if helped to tap its geological deposits, Karzai told reporters. "I have very good news for Afghans," Karzai said. "The initial figures we have obtained show that our mineral deposits are worth a thousand billion dollars -- not a thousand million dollars but a thousand billion," he said. He based his assertion, he said, on a survey being carried out by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), due to be completed in "a couple of months". The USGS, the US government's scientific agency, has been working on the 17-million dollar survey for a number of years, Karzai said. While Afghanistan is not renowned as a resource-rich country, it has a wide range of deposits, including copper, iron ore, gold and chromites, as well as natural gas, oil and precious and semi-precious stones. Little has been exploited because the country has been mired in conflict for 30 years, and is embroiled in a vicious insurgency by Islamist rebels led by the Taliban. More than 100,000 foreign troops under US and NATO command are battling the insurgents, with another 40,000 due for deployment this year. China and India have bid for contracts to develop mines, with the Chinese winning a copper contract. An iron ore contract is due to be awarded later this year. In 2007, China's state-owned metals giant Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) signed a three-billion-dollar contract to develop the Aynak copper mine -- one of the world's biggest -- over the next 30 years. First discovered in 1974, the site, 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of Kabul in Logar, is estimated to contain 11.3 million tones of copper. The Hajigak iron ore mine in Bamyan province, north of Kabul, is currently under tender, with one Chinese and half a dozen Indian firms bidding. The contract is for exploitation of almost two billion tones of high-grade ore, involving processing, smelting, steel production and electricity production. (AFP)

[RadioRaheem84]

I can understand why America would want to invade Iraq (it's the oil), but as far as I know, Afghanistan doesn't produce much in the way of natural resources that the US really needs. Exactly how would an occupation of Afghanistan benefit America?


The United States has always had a dual nature with overseas ventures; it was either because of business or politics. I think Afghanistan is mostly political. There are benefits economically but the main goal was to bomb a nation in retaliation for 9/11 and the Taliban seemed like a legitimate target to begin the War on Terror and transform a backward country into a flourishing liberal democracy (in which to add to the collection of trader nations).

During some of the Cold War ventures, the US had no interest in promoting democracy abroad but protecting its business interests. The only exceptions were Korea and Vietnam. Then there are just political aims like the Cuban and Iraqi embargos which prove that even though the State and the capitalist class are united, their interests don't always coincide.

[Uppercut]

We're in Afghanistan because of:

a) 9/11, which was a lie
b) their market
c) We need to build oil pipelines through their country
d) We're America and we can do whatever we want! We own the world, remember?

[RadioRaheem84]

We're in Afghanistan because of:

a) 9/11, which was a lie
b) their market
c) We need to build oil pipelines through their country
d) We're America and we can do whatever we want! We own the world, remember?

I just don't believe that the US is there or thought about going in there because of natural resources. I think that thought came later after the need f more justification for invading it after 9/11.

[ls]

Everything mentioned is basically true.

I would add that a war allows them to fiddle with the public debt, enabling them to spend as they please; look at all previous wars, that is a key reason for going in as well. If you give money to all the big American corporations as we've seen, then you are recycling much of it anyway, you are using money you simply wouldn't be allowed to be spent so far. US debt started going up noticeably since the times of Nixon, it kept increasing steadily until you got Bush snr in, since then it has simply gone up massively http://web.archive.org/web/20080225144359/http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm.

[The Red Next Door]

To find and kill Osama who is now somewhere sipping on a pina colada in the middle of the pool, in his big estate in his home country or somewhere else if they didn't decide to let him back and the reasons that have already been stated above.

[Scary Monster]

And dont forget the invaluable military advantage that Afghanistan provides. It sits directly to the east of Iran. Iraq is directly to the west of Iran (The US has already attacked Pakistan). The complete occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan will allow the US to attack Iran from all sides.

Attacking and then completely occupying Iran is a western imperialist's wet dream (provided the 3 previously mentioned neighboring countries are under the influence of the West through their puppet regimes, so they wont have to fear any kind of future attack from them). Having control of Iran will allow:

The US to export its gas from the Caspian Sea through the Indian ocean-- instead of crossing Russia and exporting the gas through the caucasus sea, which is too expensive-- giving the US an alternate route to export.

Lastly, taking Iran will give complete control of the Persian Gulf, which will allow the US to blockade the Hermuz Strait-- the bottleneck between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
The US would then have a monopoly control over the world's third largest oil reserve. Im sure this is why the US passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which discourages export routes through Iran, so that when the US finally have Iran, they will have the export routes all to themselves!

This is why the US must occupy Afghanistan to maintain its influence there by installing a puppet government and getting rid of any insurgents (like the Taliban).

Heres a map for y'all:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm Here you will see how Iran is in such a perfectly strategic position, with its direct connection between the isolated and oil-rich Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. And you will also see how every other central asian country is either occupied as well, or has a government that has good diplomatic relations with the US. The thought of having Iran is enough to make an imperialist cream in his pants.

[Homo Songun]

Encircle China.
Encircle Iran.
Central Asian natural gas.


9/11
Isn't this just begging the question?

[Uppercut]

I just don't believe that the US is there or thought about going in there because of natural resources. I think that thought came later after the need f more justification for invading it after 9/11.

The CIA/Mossad allowed 9/11 to carry out. That way, we can be "attacked" and seek "retribution". It sounds impossible, but like I said before, If you can get the right people in the right places, you can pull off anything.

There's a video on youtube of a group of mossad agents discussing 9/11 on Israeli TV. They claimed "We were there to document the event". There's another video showing some Israelis setting up camera outside the WTC before the attack even happened. I don't have any links at the moment (I'm at school and youtube is blocked).

[chegitz guevara]

We're in Afghanistan because of:

a) 9/11, which was a lie
b) their market
c) We need to build oil pipelines through their country
d) We're America and we can do whatever we want! We own the world, remember?

9/11 was a lie? Really? So the WTC is still standing? Those three thousand people aren't dead? I didn't see planes fly into buildings with my own eyes?

Or are you one of those who claims Arabs are too stupid to pull something like this off, and it had to be an inside job by an administration that couldn't keep a secret to save it's life using technology from the future?

Some of you need to get over your very crude and simplistic notions of imperialism. Imperialists do not just invade countries to control markets or steal resources. While that is the reason for imperialism, per se, in the neo-colonial period, imperialism is often more concerned about stability and protecting its power. A defeat in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't feared by the U.S. because we'll lose resources there. It's feared because other countries will get it into their heads that the U.S. can be beaten and that they don't have to do everything the U.S. wants. The empire breaks down.

Iraq was never about oil. It was about demonstrating the power of the Empire. Alderaan, meet the Death Star. Afghanistan was because the Taliban hosted those who dared to attack the Empire on its home soil. If they'd been based in Somalia, we'd be occupying Somalia right now, and crude Marxists would be saying "the U.S. is trying to control the crucial trade routes off the horn of Africa..."

[Edelweiss]

It's quiet sad that so many here fall into the trap of the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories and follow this bullshit religion replacement. Quiet embarrassing to see it here on RevLeft actually. It's borderline Antisemitism actually as well. I think the above poster summs the true reasons up pretty well.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about snuffing out the opium trade?

[RadioRaheem84]

9/11 was a lie? Really? So the WTC is still standing? Those three thousand people aren't dead? I didn't see planes fly into buildings with my own eyes?

Or are you one of those who claims Arabs are too stupid to pull something like this off, and it had to be an inside job by an administration that couldn't keep a secret to save it's life using technology from the future?

Some of you need to get over your very crude and simplistic notions of imperialism. Imperialists do not just invade countries to control markets or steal resources. While that is the reason for imperialism, per se, in the neo-colonial period, imperialism is often more concerned about stability and protecting its power. A defeat in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't feared by the U.S. because we'll lose resources there. It's feared because other countries will get it into their heads that the U.S. can be beaten and that they don't have to do everything the U.S. wants. The empire breaks down.

Iraq was never about oil. It was about demonstrating the power of the Empire. Alderaan, meet the Death Star. Afghanistan was because the Taliban hosted those who dared to attack the Empire on its home soil. If they'd been based in Somalia, we'd be occupying Somalia right now, and crude Marxists would be saying "the U.S. is trying to control the crucial trade routes off the horn of Africa..."

Thank you. As Seymour Hersh once said, "I wish it was about oil, because that would make more sense." Instead what he says this really was about was a project to show the world US power and take out political enemies. Resources are an after thought. The neo-conservatives though were allowed to take the helm and they had a project to use US military power to secure "liberal democracy" around the world. Take out a fascistic government and replace it with a flourishing democracy to trade with.

I mean it's all in the Bush Doctrine, his speeches, the Project for a New American Century website. It's no major secret or conspiracy theory. With this stuff I take them at their word, because it's still imperialism.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

Wealth of information on this page ^

[Luís Henrique]

Most of what has already been said - strategic position, pressure on Iran/Russia/India/China, pipelines, opium, scaring enemies, etc.

Not mentioned yet, and possibly relevant: a voluntary army isn't enough for imperialist control; conscription needs to be reinstated, but it is extremely difficult to overcome opposition to it at home. So when opportunity comes, measures are taken to weaken such opposition. An easy war against a very weak enemy is useful to that end.

Of course, it didn't work, at least not as well as it could. But that is a different problem.

There were also some weapons needing testing, some tactics to improve, etc.

A war rarely has one single cause; it usually has multiple reasons.

Luís Henrique

[~Spectre]

9/11 was a lie? Really? So the WTC is still standing? Those three thousand people aren't dead? I didn't see planes fly into buildings with my own eyes?

Or are you one of those who claims Arabs are too stupid to pull something like this off, and it had to be an inside job by an administration that couldn't keep a secret to save it's life using technology from the future?

Some of you need to get over your very crude and simplistic notions of imperialism. Imperialists do not just invade countries to control markets or steal resources. While that is the reason for imperialism, per se, in the neo-colonial period, imperialism is often more concerned about stability and protecting its power. A defeat in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't feared by the U.S. because we'll lose resources there. It's feared because other countries will get it into their heads that the U.S. can be beaten and that they don't have to do everything the U.S. wants. The empire breaks down.

Iraq was never about oil. It was about demonstrating the power of the Empire. Alderaan, meet the Death Star. Afghanistan was because the Taliban hosted those who dared to attack the Empire on its home soil. If they'd been based in Somalia, we'd be occupying Somalia right now, and crude Marxists would be saying "the U.S. is trying to control the crucial trade routes off the horn of Africa..."

You're post would make sense comrade except for the fact that the administration already had plans to attack Afghanistan before 9/11, as reported by the 9/11 commission. The logistics of the invasion were ripped from those same plans, the only difference being that the original plan called for using a three year time line, as opposed to the instant war that occured after 9/11.

It's true that imperialism has multiple factors beyond just resource nabbing-

1) It's profitable for the dominant economic interest that basically makes a lot of foreign policy - contractors, manufacturers etc. This is one of the government's levers through which they can prop up economic indicators directly.

2) It hides domestic issues by creating an existential threat.

3) History shows us that it can alleviate problems of under consumption/overproduction.

To say however that Oil/gas had nothing to do with this however is simply not remotely correct.

You have state department officials on record threatening to bomb the Taliban over the pipeline. You have the global recognition now that the world is in peak oil production. With demand rising and supply getting closer and closer to falling, you can see why this is a problem. Not to mention that policies which inflate the U.S. dollar (something the administration that orchestrated that war did beautifully), cause a spike in oil prices. As oil is traded in dollars.

[Scary Monster]

9/11 was a lie? Really? So the WTC is still standing? Those three thousand people aren't dead? I didn't see planes fly into buildings with my own eyes?

Or are you one of those who claims Arabs are too stupid to pull something like this off, and it had to be an inside job by an administration that couldn't keep a secret to save it's life using technology from the future?

Some of you need to get over your very crude and simplistic notions of imperialism. Imperialists do not just invade countries to control markets or steal resources. While that is the reason for imperialism, per se, in the neo-colonial period, imperialism is often more concerned about stability and protecting its power. A defeat in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't feared by the U.S. because we'll lose resources there. It's feared because other countries will get it into their heads that the U.S. can be beaten and that they don't have to do everything the U.S. wants. The empire breaks down.

Iraq was never about oil. It was about demonstrating the power of the Empire. Alderaan, meet the Death Star. Afghanistan was because the Taliban hosted those who dared to attack the Empire on its home soil. If they'd been based in Somalia, we'd be occupying Somalia right now, and crude Marxists would be saying "the U.S. is trying to control the crucial trade routes off the horn of Africa..."

None what you said makes any sense. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attack, and the Republicans blamed them also, not the Taliban. The US couldve invaded any third world country as long as they accused that country of harboring Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, since Al Qaeda is supposedly a "global network of terrorist cells", unlike the Taliban. The US did not accuse the Taliban of harboring Al Qaeda during the 3 years after 9/11 happened. Rather, they accused Saddam Hussein of harboring terrorists. The Taliban became a threat after the US invaded Afghanistan, when the Taliban government was overthrown during "Operation Enduring Freedom". And of course it's about resources. The world acknowledges that peak oil production has been reached. The US would have immense economic and military advantage once they control the world's major oil reserves.

[Uppercut]

9/11 was a lie? Really? So the WTC is still standing? Those three thousand people aren't dead? I didn't see planes fly into buildings with my own eyes?

*face palm*

Did I deny 9/11? No, I'm stating that the official story (9/11 commission report) is full of holes.

[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." [Arctic Beacon (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html)]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html


Or are you one of those who claims Arabs are too stupid to pull something like this off

Now that is just vicious...
Once again, did I say ANYTHING about Arabs? Did I insult anyone of Arab heritage...? Now you're just making assumptions that I'm "racist" because I refuse to believe the 9/11 Commission Report.

Yup, makes total sense.

[chegitz guevara]

Fuck you you mother fucking website!!!!!! I spent a fucking hour on that response!!!!!! GIVE IT BACK!!!11!!!1

Fuck fuck fuck fuck mother fuck!

[The Red]

There are several political and economic reasons but drugs and terrorisim seem to be the main ones. However it's been beneficial for the country at the end of the day, isnt that all that matters? I was actually considering joining the TA and going over there.

[ElectricSheep1203]

after a breif read through on this thread, would i be correct in saying that 9/11 is the American Government lacking security, and allowed the terrorist attack to happen, which then allowed the Administration to use that attack as the "official" reason why they invaded Afghanistan/Iraq?

or am i just wrong all together?

[Uppercut]

after a breif read through on this thread, would i be correct in saying that 9/11 is the American Government lacking security, and allowed the terrorist attack to happen, which then allowed the Administration to use that attack as the "official" reason why they invaded Afghanistan/Iraq?

or am i just wrong all together?


*nods* you pretty much have the story, and that's all I was trying to say in the first place.
It's amazing how some of us can jump all over everyone that has a difference in opinion or someone that shows up with different information and facts... >_>

[scarletghoul]

What about snuffing out the opium trade?
Hahahahahaha no. If anything it was to gain access to the narcotics trade, which is a hugely profitable business, beaten only by the oil and arms trades. Opium I guess is Afghanistan's most valuble natural resource. Many western companies are profitting from Aghan opium, production of which has skyrocketted since the invasion/occupation. (The Taliban actually did a pretty good job of smashing the opium industry in the years before the invasion.)

Amerika has never shown an interest in stopping the drug trade in the history of the world ever. It's used as an excuse to suppress people at home and abroad.

Unless you're joking Richter (which i'm never sure, what with the social-proletocracy and whatnot) I suggest you read up on the drug policies of the US and on the Afghanistan war in general

[Scary Monster]

after a breif read through on this thread, would i be correct in saying that 9/11 is the American Government lacking security, and allowed the terrorist attack to happen, which then allowed the Administration to use that attack as the "official" reason why they invaded Afghanistan/Iraq?

or am i just wrong all together?

Id say you are correct. The US government always had plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which everyone knows already. The conservatives jumped at the slightest chance to attack them, whether that "chance" was manufactured (which i believe ONLY to the extent of how both world trade buildings 1, 2, and 7 all fell in the exact way a systematically demolished building with charged explosives would fall. thats as far as i go, because im the last person that would become a conspiracy theorist) or not.

[the last donut of the night]

Hahahahahaha no. If anything it was to gain access to the narcotics trade, which is a hugely profitable business, beaten only by the oil and arms trades. Opium I guess is Afghanistan's most valuble natural resource. Many western companies are profitting from Aghan opium, production of which has skyrocketted since the invasion/occupation. (The Taliban actually did a pretty good job of smashing the opium industry in the years before the invasion.)

How are they profiting? I'm not trolling, just curious.

[Uppercut]

How are they profiting? I'm not trolling, just curious.

The CIA has a history of assisting drug traffickers, whether in China (the KMT), Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ny-times-afghan-opium-kingpin-on-cia-payroll.html


A bombshell article in today’s edition of the New York Times lifts the lid on how the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a suspected kingpin of the country’s booming opium trade, has been on the CIA payroll for the past eight years. However, the article serves as little more than a whitewash because it fails to address the fact that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the agenda to reinstate the Golden Crescent drug trade.

“The agency pays (Ahmed Wali) Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home,” reports the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1).

An October 2008 report (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html) from the Times reveals how, after security forces discovered a huge tractor-trailer full of heroin outside Kandahar in 2004, “Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs.”

In 2006, following the discovery of another cache of heroin, “United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai.”

The Times article out today also discusses how the CIA uses Karzai as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban. He is also directly implicated in the manufacturing of phony ballots and polling stations that were attributed to the President’s disputed election victory.

“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”

Officials quoted by The Times described Karzai as a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors.

The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world’s opium, with the equivalent of 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year. Other figures put the number far higher, at around 6,100 tonnes a year.

The New York Times exposé pins the blame on Karzai, but fails to explain that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the United States’ agenda to restore, not eradicate, the drug trade.

Before the invasion, the Taliban collaborated closely with the U.N. to reduce opium production down to just 185 tonnes, a figure at least 2000% below current levels. The notion that the “Taliban benefits from the drug trade” and that the U.S. is trying to stop it, as both Bush and Obama claimed, is the complete opposite of what is actually happening.

[Kayser_Soso]

Id say you are correct. The US government always had plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which everyone knows already. The conservatives jumped at the slightest chance to attack them, whether that "chance" was manufactured (which i believe ONLY to the extent of how both world trade buildings 1, 2, and 7 all fell in the exact way a systematically demolished building with charged explosives would fall. thats as far as i go, because im the last person that would become a conspiracy theorist) or not.

Except that they DIDN'T fall anything like a controlled demolition, and all you have to do is look up some videos of actual controlled demolitions to see that.

[gorillafuck]

The CIA/Mossad allowed 9/11 to carry out. That way, we can be "attacked" and seek "retribution". It sounds impossible, but like I said before, If you can get the right people in the right places, you can pull off anything.

There's a video on youtube of a group of mossad agents discussing 9/11 on Israeli TV. They claimed "We were there to document the event". There's another video showing some Israelis setting up camera outside the WTC before the attack even happened. I don't have any links at the moment (I'm at school and youtube is blocked).
The Mossad, despite all their atrocities, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I've never found any evidence whatsoever that they were connected or had before knowledge of it.

[Uppercut]

Just don't start screaming "anti-semetism". I have jewish ancentry, myself.

http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgSkZkrGwA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

The reggae singer is Matisyahu, btw. His music is quite good.

[~Spectre]

Worth noting perhaps is that the the economic interests in the U.S. do benefit from increased drug flow. Prisons are also privatized and outsourced.

Perhaps they also feel there is some value in flooding the drug market too (lowering the prices) to reduce the intake from other narco groups that are less inclined to follow U.S. interests.

[Communist]

.
Protest demands
Stop attack on Marjah
Out of Afghanistan now (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/2/19/stop-attack-marjah)
February 19, 2010

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/P1010563.JPG (http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/P1010563.JPG)
Protesters lined the street in front of Klobuchar’s office
holding signs and banners demanding an end to the attack
on Majah. (Fight Back! News)

Minneapolis, MN - About 75 people gathered here at the offices of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, (http://klobuchar.senate.gov/contactamy.cfm) Feb. 18, to protest a new escalation of the war in Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO forces have launched an attack (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan) on the city of Marjah (http://www.maplandia.com/afghanistan/helmand/marjeh/), a city with over 80,000 residents.

Following the dispatch of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the attack on Marjah (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/General-NATO-Controls-Marjahs-Main-Roads-and-Markets-84783537.html) represents a new and bloody escalation.

Protesters lined the street in front of Klobuchar’s office holding signs and banners demanding an end to the attack on Majah and urging an end to the war and occupation. Initiated by the Iraq Peace Action Coalition (http://peace1.wordpress.com/), organizations participating in the protest included the Anti-War Committee (http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/), University of Minnesota Students for a Democratic Society (http://www.sua.umn.edu/groups/directory/show.php?id=1480) and Women Against Military Madness (http://www.worldwidewamm.org/home.html).

A statement from the Iraq Peace Action Coalition noted, “Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians are in imminent peril as U.S. and NATO military forces enter the city of Marjah. Will Marjah, Afghanistan suffer the same fate as Fallujah, Iraq, which the U.S. also attacked, leaving thousands dead and injured and hundreds of buildings and homes destroyed and damaged?”

Meredith Aby of the Anti War Committee stated, “It is important we have a visible and active anti-war movement that responds to moves to escalate the war. We need to be in the streets demanding the U.S. gets out of Afghanistan and that all U.S. occupations of other countries come to an end.”

[~Spectre]

No no no, they need to bring freedom, by using more freedom bullets and creating more freedom craters.

[~Spectre]

Russian General of the Army Nikolay Makarov:

"'Makarov also commented on the recent rumors about the possibility of an attack upon Iran by the United States. In his opinion, this would be complete madness on the part of the American military. He said: "Admiral Michael McMullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said that, in the United States, there is a plan for carrying out strikes against Iran but the United States clearly understands that now, when it is conducting two military campaigns, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan, a third campaign against Iran would simply lead to a collapse. It would not be able to withstand the strain."

Nevertheless, in proportion to the winding down of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the plan for) a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the opinion of General Makarov, may again come out to the foreground.

General Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said: "The consequences of such an attack will be terrible not only for the region but also for us. Iran is our neighbor and we are very carefully following this situation. The leadership of our country is undertaking all measures in order not to allow such a (military) development of events." '"

[Communist]

.
U.S./NATO offensive unravels in Afghanistan (http://www.workers.org/2010/world/afghanistan_0311/)

By Sara Flounders
Mar 7, 2010


The Pentagon offensive against the Afghan city of Marjah was public-relations media hype from the very first day. The sole purpose of the offensive in Marjah was to convince the U.S. population and increasingly tepid NATO allies that this imperialist war is winnable.

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is now the longest foreign war in U.S. history, on both the air and the ground. The Pentagon described the Marjah offensive as the biggest military operation in more than eight years of occupation, but now calls it a prelude to a larger assault on the city of Kandahar.

In U.S. counterinsurgency warfare, such an offensive means dropping heavily armed troops in an area seeking to draw enemy fire. The troops then call in air support, long-range artillery fire, machine-gun fire, rockets, white phosphorous bombs and anti-personnel bombs. The latter cover the ground with bomblets that emit thousands of razor-sharp fragments.

Tens of thousands of civilians were driven from the villages of Helmand Province, and the town of Marjah was partially evacuated. But thousands of Afghans were unwilling to leave their homes and animals in the cold of winter for the hunger, instability and flimsy shelter of refugee camps. Many are too poor to leave. They ended up as targets of Pentagon weapons.

The Marjah offensive’s stated goal was to introduce a ready-made, U.S.-created local regime, staffed by an Afghan puppet administration totally dependent on U.S. power. With cynical and racist arrogance, NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, “We got a government in a box ready to roll in.” (New York Times, Feb. 12)

Afghan casualties unrecorded

Throughout this war, the Pentagon and corporate media have never counted and scarcely mentioned Afghan civilian deaths, injuries and trauma from bombings, fires and destruction. Tens of thousands more die of starvation, cold and infections in crowded refugees camps, swollen cities and isolated villages.

During the U.S. offensive in Marjah, U.S. deaths in Afghanistan reached the milestone of 1,000. This total confirms that youth are paying the price of the lack of education and job opportunities in the U.S. In addition, suicides among returning soldiers now exceed combat deaths and injuries are about four times the deaths.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point warned of sharp increases in U.S. troop casualties in the months ahead. “What I want to do is signal that this thing is going to be $5 billion to $10 billion a month and 300 to 500 killed and wounded a month by next summer. That’s what we probably should expect.” (Army Times, Jan. 7)

As the two-week offensive officially ended in Marjah, bombs exploded in one of the most secure areas of Kabul. Some reporters described it as a sophisticated and well-coordinated operation in the heavily guarded capital.

A car bomb targeted housing of employees from countries connected to the occupation, apparently with the aim of undermining international support for the Afghan war.

During the offensive came the announcement on Feb. 21 that the Netherlands coalition government had fallen apart, due to heated opposition of a coalition party to keeping Dutch troops in Afghanistan. This sealed the planned withdrawal of 2,000 Dutch troops from NATO forces in Afghanistan, as of next August.

The Netherlands was the first NATO member to announce that it is quitting. The announcement was a big setback for the U.S. and NATO, and has prompted wide media speculation of other possible NATO withdrawals from the deeply unpopular war.

A Los Angeles Times editorial on Feb. 24 stated that the Dutch “withdrawal is likely to raise concerns about a fracturing of the international commitment to Afghanistan, and about the Afghan government’s ability to provide security in the long term . ... The Dutch decision should serve as a warning to the Obama administration.”

The majority of the people in almost all the NATO countries opposes the war and wants their troops out. This has become a major issue in domestic politics and elections in many countries. Canada has announced the withdrawal of its forces by the summer of 2011.

Anti-war mood undermines NATO militarism

Following the Dutch announcement, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a speech at the National Defense University told NATO officers and officials that public and political opposition to the military had grown so great in Europe that it was directly affecting operations in Afghanistan and impeding the alliance’s broader goals. “The demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment. ... Right now the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems.” (New York Times, Feb. 24)

Gates also reminded NATO officials that, not counting U.S. forces, NATO troops in Afghanistan were scheduled to increase to 50,000 this year — from 30,000 last year.

The total 43-country International Security Assistance Force, including U.S. soldiers, is presently at 140,000 troops in Afghanistan.

As journalist Rick Rozoff summed up a year ago: “The Afghan war is also the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s first armed conflict outside of Europe and its first ground war in the 60 years of its existence. It has been waged with the participation of armed units from all 26 NATO member states and 12 other European and Caucasus nations linked to NATO. ...

“The 12 European NATO partners who have sent troops in varying numbers to assist Washington and the Alliance include the continent’s five former neutral nations: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. The European NATO and partnership deployments count among their number troops from six former Soviet Republics — with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine tapped for recent reinforcements & the 3 Baltic states ...
including airbases and troop and naval deployments in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and the Indian Ocean (where the Japanese navy has been assisting).” (rickrozoff.wordpress.com, March 25, 2009)

Military units from Australia, New Zealand, Jordan, Colombia and South Korea are also stationed in Afghanistan.

Afghans have right to resist

Despite all these occupation forces, Afghanistan has become an imperialist quagmire with no stability, no security and no end in sight.

The resistance in Afghanistan has gained ground and broad support as it becomes clear to the whole population that U.S./NATO forces have brought only racist arrogance, corruption, repression and greater poverty. While occupation forces label all resistance as terrorism and Taliban-inspired, increasingly Afghans see resistance as a right and a patriotic or religious duty. It is essential in the period ahead that the anti-war movement supports the right of the Afghan people to resist this criminal occupation and increases the effort to bring all troops home now.
_________
(http://www.workers.org/afghanistan/)


Articles copyright 1995-2010 W (http://www.workers.org/)or (http://www.workersworld.net/wwp/pmwiki.php/Main/AboutThisSite)kers W (http://www.workersworld.net/wwp/pmwiki.php/Main/Background)orl (http://www.workersworld.net/)d (http://wwppitt.weebly.com/). (http://webarchive.loc.gov/collections/lcwa0001/20011014184410/http://www.workers.org/marxism/)
Verbatim copying and distribution of entire
article is permitted in any medium without
royalty provided this notice is preserved.

[Communist]

.
Exit Strategies for
Afghanistan & Iraq (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hayden)

By Tom Hayden (http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/tom_hayden)
The Nation
March 8, 2010


It's been a long winter for the peace movement. Waiting
for Obama has proved fruitless. The Great Recession has
strengthened Wall Street and diverted attention from
the wars. The debate over health care still won't go
away and has demoralized progressive advocates. Given a
chance to exit from Afghanistan when the Karzai
election proved to be stolen, President Obama escalated
anyway, but also promised to "begin" exiting almost
before an opposition could mobilize at home.


Rep. Dennis Kucinich will step into the crosswinds this
week and force the House of Representatives to wake up,
pay attention, and vote up or down on the Afghanistan
war.

The Kucinich initiative at least will reveal where
Congress stands. Whether it will energize the peace
movement for upcoming March protests or beyond is
unpredictable.

Kucinich, interviewed along with other members of
Congress by The Nation last week, is introducing a
so-called privileged resolution requiring the House to
hold a three-hour debate this coming Wednesday,
followed by a vote on the Afghanistan war.

The vote is expected to authorize the war, but passage
of Kucinich's initiative would require a withdrawal in
thirty days. If the president rejected such a decision,
the withdrawal would be delayed until the end of 2010,
nine months from now.

"It's time to force a debate," Kucinich says. "It's not
enough to slow-walk the end of the war." On Friday
Kucinich had 17 co-sponsors for his measure.

The Kucinich bill is based on the 1973 War Powers Act,
passed during the upsurge of Congressional opposition
to the unilateral war-making of the executive branch
during the Richard Nixon era. The War Powers Act,
strongly opposed by Bush-era officials including Dick
Cheney and John Yoo, was based on Article I, Section 8,
of the federal constitution which, according to James
Madison, "expressly vested" the power to "declare" war
in Congress.

According to Gary Wills' history in Bomb Power, the War
Powers legislation actually diluted Congressional
authority by making declaration of war a joint exercise
with the White House. Nonetheless, the symbolic threat
to presidential prerogative inflamed Cheney into
describing it as a congressional usurpation. Yoo, the
author of the notorious torture memos in the Bush
administration, went so far as to argue that "declare"
in the 18th century meant simply to "recognize[d] a
state of affairs."

The Kucinich measure seeks to remind Congress of the
peak progressive moment when, in tandem with a vast
anti-war movement in the streets, Richard Nixon was
forced to resign and the Vietnam War was terminated. A
decade later, Congress again would play a key role in
the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan era.

But Wednesday's vote may be a measure of how much
Congress has continued to surrender its war-making
prerogative to the administration. Many liberal
Democrats interviewed for this article expressed
discomfort or exasperation towards the Kucinich
measure, claiming that it will be overwhelmingly
defeated and weaken efforts this spring to introduce
anti-war amendments during debate on the war budget.

In one member's view, the Kucinich proposal represents
"complete and total withdrawal now," which most in
Congress refuse to support. A more common complaint,
voiced in a memo from Peace Action, is that "some of
our allies on the Hill are concerned that the
relatively low amount votes for this resolution may
make us look weak."

Another member said, "You can't stop Dennis, he does
this all the time, he squeezes members who aren't
consulted." Another, who intends to vote for the
Kucinich proposal despite having had no input, said
bluntly, "A shitty vote has consequences."

Meanwhile, on Afghanistan, the Congressional
Progressive Caucus is in disarray. Leadership on
Afghanistan issues has been passed to Rep. Mike Honda,
a progressive Democrat from San Jose, who last year
circulated a dramatic exit proposal that would flip US
Afghan spending from 80 percent military to 80 percent
civilian. Honda's staff did not return calls from The
Nation requesting further information.

Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynne Woolsey is up in arms
against progressive Democrats who are supporting Marcy
Winograd, an anti-war citizen-candidate running against
hawkish Rep. Jane Harman in the South Bay area of Los
Angeles. Woolsey now refuses to work with "outside
groups" such as Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)
who are backing Winograd's primary bid. Woolsey also
opposed last year's forums on Afghanistan sponsored by
Democrats including Honda and CPC co-chair Raul
Grijalva. Woolsey simply says the US shouldn't be in
Afghanistan, but nothing more, which leaves her
isolated from peace groups and leaves her own
colleagues searching for strategies.

In addition, the once strong Out of Iraq Caucus, with
over 70 members, appears dormant or dissolved, despite
the growing threats to Obama's plan for a phased
withdrawal of all troops from Iraq by 2012.

Just ahead are debates over the $33 billion funding
request for Obama's troop escalation, and the $159
billion for Afghanistan and Iraq contained in the
proposed military budget. Despite significant
opposition among Democrats to the president's
escalation proposal, it is highly unlikely that the
funds will be turned down now that American troops have
been dispatched. Whether a vote will be taken on Rep.
Barbara Lee's proposal to block the $33 billion in
funding is unclear at the moment. But sizeable
opposition is expected to rally around exit strategy
measures being jointly contemplated by Rep. Jim
McGovern and Sen. Russ Feingold this spring.

Despite White House opposition, McGovern was able to
win support from a majority of Democrats last year for
his resolution calling on the Pentagon to report an
Afghanistan exit strategy by year's end. With the
president having committed to an exit strategy by
beginning troop withdrawals by summer 2011, McGovern's
measure might gain greater traction. He told The Nation
he will introduce a revised version of the exit
strategy resolution in the coming weeks.

Feingold's public thinking on Afghanistan hasn't
changed since December when he opposed the president's
escalation, according to the Wisconsin senator's staff.
Feingold previously has proposed a "flexible timetable
for reducing our troop levels" and opposed the defense
appropriations bill because of its inclusion of
Afghanistan funding.

Feingold and McGovern are expected soon to cooperate in
proposing an exit strategy that contains a timetable
for troop reductions. Defining such an exit plan
quickly is key to the Administration's policy for
Afghanistan, since the negotiated departure of US
troops won't happen without one. And most observers of
Afghanistan say the Taliban cannot be drawn into a
peace process or political negotiations without a
concrete assurance that the military occupation will
end and US/NATO/USAF troops will be withdrawn or
replaced by peacekeepers.

Secret talks with the Taliban have intensified since
spring 2009, the respected Pakistani journalist Ahmed
Rashid wrote recently in the New York Review of Books.
Rashid is an official adviser to the US diplomatic team
led by Richard Holbrooke. In a recent essay he floats a
negotiating scenario which seems quasi-official and, of
course, is officially deniable. His seven-point
proposal includes lifting current sanctions on Taliban
leaders so that talks can occur in a neutral venue,
formation of a legal Taliban political party in
Afghanistan, and a seriously-funded "reconciliation
body" to create security for returning Taliban members
to Afghanistan.

Rashid's proposal implies, but does not include, a US
troop withdrawal, the key condition demanded by the
Taliban in exchange for starting all-party talks. It is
possible that Obama's pledge to "begin" withdrawing in
2011 is an initial signal of the intention the
insurgents want to hear.

In that case, the McGovern and Feingold initiatives can
be crucial to moving the US, Afghan and Taliban
positions closer to a formula for reconciliation or,
more likely, coexistence. The only alternative is the
perpetuation of the neoconservatives' Long War
scenario, at trillions of dollars in budget
expenditures, and/or an outbreak of civil war in
Afghanistan.

Whether Congress has the backbone seems to depend on
whether there is the force of public opinion to implant
one. The previous experiences of Vietnam, Central
America and Iraq have shaped a skeptical mood within
that public, but it is not sufficiently angry yet to
force the end of the war. A deepening battlefield
quagmire will only cement that skepticism, but Congress
has to channel the public mood into political impact.

Congress's inherent problem is its failure to
collaborate with grassroots opinion in fostering public
antiwar sentiment. Instead, as with the Kucinich
measure, at most the members of Congress expect
activists to endorse, support, leaflet, bird-dog, and
light up the phone lines to pressure other members to
vote their way. Too often they fail to use their
enormous resources to bring attention and public
engagement to issues not (yet) arousing public opinion
or media interest.

Tellingly, the CIA's secret war in Pakistan, which
includes the escalation of drone attacks, has drawn no
meaningful Congressional opposition. The likely reason
is that, with the exception of reports by Jane Mayer in
The New Yorker, the casualties and costs of the drone
war have been hidden from the American public.

The re-emergence of a coherent peace movement could
help push the McGovern and Feingold measures forward,
and also mount pressure for hearings on the secret war
before it engulfs Pakistan.

The protests planned nationwide in March will revive
needed attention to Afghanistan in many local areas
around the country. But on the national level, the
demise of United for Peace and Justice leaves a vacuum
which narrow ideological groups are unable to fill. The
dispersal of protest energies towards other
issues--Wall Street bailouts, health care, Copenhagen,
marriage equality--weakens any possibility of a unified
focus around Afghanistan.

Despite these organizational obstacles, the ongoing
wars will inflict serious political and moral
consequences. Without a greater role by the organized
peace movement, large numbers of voters will become
passive, or drop away, during the forthcoming
congressional elections and the next presidential one.
The Obama administration has never treated the peace
constituency as one worth cultivating, though the Iraq
War was the critical issue difference in the primaries
and general elections in 2006 and 2008. In turn, the
peace constituency has never turned into a permanent,
organized, well-funded lobbying force in
Washington--except for the brief flare-ups like those
of MoveOn in the 2004-06 cycle.

As a result, everything may depend on whether popular
perception is that Obama and the Democrats have turned
promises of peace into action. At the moment, such
potential support is being drained into despair.
Congress and Obama will have to work to bring it back.

_____________________________________________

[vyborg]

US army is in Afghanistan to bring democracy there, it is obvious!!

[Guerrilla22]

It is believed that the Caspian Sea has the largest untapped oil reserves of any region in the world. In order to get oil out of the region they need to be able to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. They tried negociating witht he Taliban to allow it to ahppen well before 9/11, but negocaitions fell through. So as always the US used military force to look out for their economic interests.

[Communist]

.
Civilian Deaths Continue Unabated in Afghanistan (http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/2010-03/VR100311.htm#03)
by Jerome Starkey and Philippe Naughton

NATO forces in southern Afghanistan bombed a civilian convoy, killing 27 people including women and children and injuring many more, Afghan officials said. The airstrike in a remote part of Oruzgan province February 22 capped a bloody week for Afghan civilians that has seen some 60 innocent people killed by NATO weapons.

Afghanistan’s cabinet called the attack “unjustifiable” and condemned the raid “in the strongest terms possible.” Officials said three vehicles were bombed, killing at least 27 people, including four women and one child, while at least 12 others were injured. The cars were traveling between Kandahar and Daikundi, in Afghanistan’s central highlands, when NATO and Afghan forces mistook them for insurgents.

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said troops on the ground thought the civilians were militants “en route to attack a joint Afghan-ISAF unit” but they later confirmed that there were women and children at the scene and launched an investigation. The local governor and the interior minister said all of the victims were civilians. U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said he was “extremely saddened.”

“I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission,” he said in a statement yesterday. “We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust.”

http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/091202.chi.afghanistan.19.jpg

But the last seven days have been anything but peaceful. Last Sunday at least nine civilians were killed when troops involved in Helmand hit a compound with a volley of rockets, during Operation Moshtarak.

On Monday NATO and Afghan forces mistakenly killed five men and injured two others in Kandahar province after deciding that they had been planting a roadside bomb. “The joint patrol called for an airstrike,” ISAF said in a statement. “Following the strike, the Afghan-ISAF patrol approached the scene and determined the individuals had not been emplacing an IED.”

On Thursday, an airstrike in northern Kunduz province missed insurgents and killed seven policemen while on Friday a man carrying a box was shot and killed in Nad-e Ali. “The man dropped the box, turned and ran away from the patrol, and then for an unknown reason turned and ran toward the patrol at which time they shot and killed him,” NATO said in a statement. “After a search of the individual it was determined the box, which appeared to be filled with IED-making materials, was not an IED.”

In December NATO was accused of killing 10 civilians, including eight schoolchildren, in Narang district in Kunar. NATO claimed they were part of a bomb-making cell.

Yesterday’s civilian deaths come as a further blow to the Western effort in Afghanistan after the Dutch Prime Minister conceded that he could not prevent his forces being pulled out this year due to the collapse of his Government.

Jan Peter Balkenende lost the argument over extending the deployment at a 16-hour Cabinet session, in the first big reversal for the recently appointed NATO leader, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who had publicly requested a continued Dutch commitment.

“Our task as the lead nation ends in August,” Mr. Balkenende said. After a three-month draw-down, the Dutch will be completely out of Afghanistan by the end of the year.

http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090321.sydneyaustralia_1.jpg

Another concern is the continued presence of 1,000 Australian troops. The Canberra Government has repeatedly refused to take over the lead role in Uruzgan if Holland leaves, demanding that a big NATO power provide the main share of troop numbers.

Just as important is the impression that European countries are struggling to find their share of the 10,000 extra troops requested by General McChrystal to join 30,000 extra US troops in Afghanistan, with France ruling out more forces and a fierce debate in Germany.

The Times understands that the Dutch forces in Uruzgan will be replaced by US troops, diverting them from the surge operation against the Taliban.

[I].

[Communist]

.
Air Strike on Civilians Reverberates
Beyond Afghanistan (http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/2010-03/VR100311.htm#02)
Charles Fromm, Inter Press Service


Amid growing European discontent over the war in Afghanistan, the head of U.S. and NATO forces apologized Monday, February 22 for an air strike that killed at least 27 civilians in the central part of the country Sunday.


http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090402.strasbourg.nato.jpg

“We are extremely saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives. I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission,” General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said in a statement.

“We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust,” McChrystal continued.

Sunday’s attack consisted of a U.S. helicopter firing on several vehicles as they traveled towards Kandahar, the largest city in southern Afghanistan.

But the political implications of the attack, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, was carried out by helicopter-borne U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF), could be serious, not just in Afghanistan itself, but also among electorates in Europe and Canada that have become increasingly opposed to their militaries’ involvement in the war.

This is likely to be especially true in the Netherlands, whose government collapsed Saturday amid negotiations on whether or not to keep troops in Afghanistan. The air strike took place in a district controlled by the Dutch army, and if Dutch forces assisted in the attack it could have serious political consequences in the Netherlands.

The attack was carried out on the apparently mistaken belief that a convoy of vehicles was transporting Taliban fighters toward eastern Helmand province, where U.S. and allied forces have launched a major offensive.

That it took place in an area where Dutch forces are concentrated is likely to strengthen those factions in the Netherlands opposing any extension in the Hague’s participation in the war beyond August.

The Dutch troops have been central in the war effort, despite their low numbers. The New York Times reported last week that the Netherlands — whose troop contribution to the Afghanistan mission is one of the highest per capita — have been subject to a higher casualty rate then other coalition forces, including the U.S., because of their postings in the dangerous southern province of Oruzgan.

http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090404-TurkeyIstanbulAntiNA.jpg

The lethal strike came despite the implementation of stricter rules of engagement regarding strikes ordered by Gen. McChrystal last summer when he took command of NATO/ISAF. This is the most lethal incident in which civilians were killed by U.S.-led forces since last September when a German-ordered air strike on fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban killed 140 people, the majority of whom were civilians. ISAF officials insisted Monday that the attack is being investigated to determine whether it violated those rules of engagement.

In a statement released Monday, ISAF officials said “Yesterday, a group of suspected insurgents, believed to be en route to attack a joint Afghan-ISAF unit, was engaged by an airborne weapons team resulting in a number of individuals killed and wounded. After the joint ground force arrived at the scene and found women and children, they transported the wounded to medical treatment facilities.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has frequently condemned the killings of civilians by U.S. and NATO forces but has found himself largely powerless in terms of effecting change. “The repeated killing of civilians by NATO forces is unjustifiable, we strongly condemn it,” Karzai’s cabinet said in a statement issued in Kabul. It said 27 civilians, “including four women and one child,” were killed in the attack.

In another effort to improve the perception of ISAF forces, McChrystal revised the rules of engagement last summer to counter the rising numbers of civilian deaths attributed to coalition troops, and the increasing resentment toward his occupying army and the corrupt Afghan government that accompanies it.

The shift in policy restricted the use of air strikes to situations where coalition forces were in imminent danger.


.

[Communist]

.
Afghanistan's My Lai Massacre (http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/2010-03/VR100311.htm#05)

When Charlie Company's Lieutenant William Calley ordered and encouraged his men to rape, maim and slaughter over 400 men, women and children in My Lai in Vietnam back in 1968, there were at least four heroes who tried to stop him or bring him and higher officers to justice. One was helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr., who evacuated some of the wounded victims, and who set his chopper down between a group of Vietnamese and Calley's men, ordering his door gunner to open fire on the U.S. soldiers if they shot any more people.

One was Ron Ridenhour, a soldier who learned of the massacre and began a private investigation, ultimately reporting the crime to the Pentagon and Congress. One was Michael Bernhardt, a soldier in Charlie Company, who witnessed the whole thing and reported it all to Ridenhour. And one was journalist Seymour Hersh, who broke the story in the U.S. media.

http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090330-GermanyFreiburgAntiN.jpg

Today's war in Afghanistan also has its My Lai massacres. It has them almost weekly, as U.S. warplanes bomb wedding parties or homes "suspected" of housing terrorists that turn out to house nothing but civilians. But these My Lais are all conveniently labeled accidents. They get filed away and forgotten as the inevitable "collateral damage" of war.

There was, however, a massacre recently that was not a mistake — a massacre, which, while it only involved fewer than a dozen innocent people, bears the same stench as My Lai. It was the execution-style slaying of eight handcuffed students, aged 11-18, and a 12-year-old neighboring shepherd boy who had been visiting the others in Kunar Province on December 26.

Sadly, no principled soldier with a conscience like pilot Thompson tried to save these children. No observer had the guts of a Bernhardt to report what he had seen. No Ridenhour among the other serving US troops in Afghanistan has investigated this atrocity or reported it to Congress. And no American reporter has investigated this war crime the way Hersh investigated My Lai.

There is a Hersh for the Kunar massacre, but he's a Brit. American reporters, like the anonymous journalistic drones who wrote "CNN's" December 29 report on the incident took the Pentagon's initial cover story — that the dead were part of a secret bomb squad — at face value.

Jerome Starkey, a dogged reporter in Afghanistan working for the Times of London and the Scotsman, talked to other sources — the dead boys' headmaster, other townspeople and Afghan government officials — and found out the real truth about a gruesome war crime, the execution of handcuffed children. And while a few news outlets in the U.S. like The New York Times did mention that there were some claims that the dead were children, not bomb makers, none, including CNN, which had bought and run the Pentagon's lies unquestioningly, bothered to print the news update when, on February 24, the U.S. military admitted that in fact the dead were innocent students. Nor has any U.S. corporate news organization mentioned that the dead had been handcuffed when they were shot.

Starkey reported the U.S. government's damning admission. Yet still the U.S. media remain silent as the grave.

Under the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to execute a captive. Yet, in Kunar on December 26, U.S.-led forces, or perhaps U.S. soldiers or contract mercenaries, cold-bloodedly executed eight handcuffed prisoners.

It is a war crime to kill children under the age of 15, yet in this incident a boy of 11 and a boy of 12 were handcuffed as captured combatants and executed. Two others of the dead were 12 and a third was 15.

I called the secretary of defense's office to ask if any investigation was underway into this crime or if one was planned, was told I had to send a written request, which I did. To date, I have heard nothing. What the Pentagon has done — no surprise — is to pass the buck by leaving any investigation to the International Security Assistance Force, a fancy name for the U.S.-led NATO force fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is a clever ruse, since Congress has no authority to compel testimony from NATO or the ISAF as it would the Pentagon. A source at the Senate Armed Services Committee says the ISAF is investigating, and that the committee has asked for a "briefing" — that means nothing would be under oath — once that investigation is complete, but do not hold your breath or expect anything dramatic.

I also contacted the press office of the House Armed Services Committee to see if any hearings into this crime have been planned. The answer is no, though the press officer asked me to send her details of the incident. (Not a good sign that House members and staff are paying much attention — the killings led to countrywide student demonstrations in Afghanistan, to a formal protest by the office of President Hamid Karzai and to an investigation by the Afghan government, which concluded that innocent students had been handcuffed and executed and, no doubt, contributed to a call by the Afghan government for prosecution and execution of American soldiers who kill Afghan civilians.)

http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090404.nyc.antiwar087.jpg (http://sdsantiwar.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/unca.jpg)

There is still time for real heroes to stand up in the midst of this imperial adventure that may now appropriately be called Obama's War in Afghanistan. Plenty of men and women in uniform in Afghanistan know that nine innocent Afghan children were captured and murdered at America's hands last December in Kunar. There are also probably people who were involved in the planning or carrying out of this criminal operation who are sickened by what happened. But these people are, so far, holding their tongues, whether out of fear or out of simply not knowing where to turn. (Note: If you have information you may contact me.)

There are also plenty of reporters in Afghanistan and in Washington who could be investigating this story. They are not. Do not ask me why. They certainly should not be able to call themselves journalists — at least with a straight face.


.

[redwog]

I find it quite amazing that Marxists who should proffer analysis framed by materialism can believe that war is conducted to suit ideological ends.

Imperialism in today's world is not only about securing markets and resources for the the USA, but to guarantee the smooth functioning of empire itself.

Caspian gas and oil is for feeding energy to Asia (India/China), pure and simple.

The Taliban visited the US in June/July 2001 to discuss the pipeline with the US Gov and Unocol. The Taliban wanted an unreasonably large slice of the pie. They left thinking they might get another shot at negotiating, 6 months later, they're out on their asses.

Some forget that this economic crisis/energy crisis was on the horizon in 2001 - the stock market was already wavering.

Wars are all premised on material need not ideology - the ideology is merely a justification for the domestic masses to help swallow the pill of war.

[Communist]

.
Afghanistan (http://www.the-spark.net/np865802.html)
Marja – Fake Battle & Real Casualties

The battle for control of Marja in southern Afghanistan was supposed to be the biggest offensive in years, with more than 10,000 U.S. and allied troops. It was hailed as part of a new U.S. war strategy: massive numbers of U.S. troops would clear a Taliban stronghold, while supposedly taking care to protect Afghan civilians.

When the battle started, James Jones, Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor, told a CNN Sunday talk show, “A successfully demonstrated and executed operation in Marja is going to make a big change in not only the southern part of Afghanistan, but will send shock waves through the rest of the country that there is a new direction, there's a new commitment.”

After two weeks of battle, the U.S. claimed its forces had successfully cleared the Taliban from the region. According to a local Afghan official, Gulab Mangal, the battle was a “great achievement” because so few civilians were killed.

Big surprise: it was all a lie.

First, Marja is hardly a “stronghold,” as U.S. commanders described it and the U.S. news media repeated so obediently. Marja is neither a city, nor even a real town, but only a few clusters of farmers’ huts spread out over a wide region. But that didn’t mean that civilians were spared.

At least 55 civilians, including many women and children, were killed in two separate rocket attacks that U.S. commanders later called “mistakes.”

After the U.S. declared its victory in Marja, Afghan President Hamid Karzai showed up at a local mosque with top American and Afghan officials to promise a better future to local residents. According to the account in the New York Times, the residents weren’t buying it.

Hajji Abdul Aziz, a leading elder in the region, shook his finger at Karzai, saying, “We will tell you that the warlords [connected to the Karzai government] who ruled us for the past eight years, those people whose hands are red with peoples’ blood, those people who killed hundreds – they are still ruling over this nation.”

Others denounced what the U.S. occupiers were doing: innocent farmers arrested by the Americans, irrigation canals destroyed, schools and homes taken over by American troops, other homes wrecked. “You have said on the radio that you want our children to be educated,” Aziz said to Karzai and U.S. officials. “But how could we educate our children when their schools are turned into military bases?”

U.S. officials boasted they have a government and police force to run Marja and the surrounding region. “Government in a box” is the way U.S. commander Stanley McChrystal described it to the New York Times. In fact, these forces assembled and flown in by the U.S. are obviously little more than puppets of the U.S. occupation.

From beginning to end, the U.S. battle in Marja was aimed not at Afghanistan but at the U.S. public, designed to gain support for an escalation of the war – a war the public has opposed for a long time.

Marja is a prelude to a potentially much bloodier debacle, the battle for Kandahar, the second largest city in Afghanistan, a battle that U.S. officials say they are planning to begin this summer.

U.S. troops out of Afghanistan – immediately! Long before the summer!

.