Is the War in Afghanistan an Imperialist one?

[28350]

I'm sorta debating a friend on facebook, and he brings up these issues:


1) The established Afghan government repeatedly defies and embarrasses the US. Especially Karzai

2) There is almost no industry or natural resources in Afghanistan
‎3) We've spent far more money on the war that we would ever get back

4) The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation, not a war the US embarked upon unilaterally

‎5) The US would gain almost nothing from having an empire and would be unable to manage it. Even the British Empire, the greatest empire in history, collapsed under the fatigue that empire managing necessitates.



He also claims that "planned economies and workers' control of the means of production caused 50+ million deaths in china," but for some reason I find this claim less worth refuting.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm sorta debating a friend on facebook, and he brings up these issues:



He also claims that "planned economies and workers' control of the means of production caused 50+ million deaths in china," but for some reason I find this claim less worth refuting.


As the official justifications for the war become increasingly threadbare, its reality as an imperialist war has become more obvious to more people.
Since the collapse of the old imperialist blocs at the end of the 1980s, the USA has been faced with greater and greater challenges to its position as the ‘world cop'. No one disputes its military strength, indeed no one other power - or combination of half a dozen - is able to compete directly with it in this respect. However, this has not stopped the other powers disputing US domination in various regions of the world. Most notably today we have the rise of China as a gigantic economic entity which has been liberally using the money it has gained from trade to quietly buy its way into areas in which it had no prior interest. There is also the resurgence of Russia; and the US has not ruled out the danger of a challenge to its authority centred on the very heartlands of capitalism - in Europe, around France and above all Germany.
If the USA is to maintain its ‘leadership' in the face of all these challenges, it needs to control the strategically vital areas of the Middle East and Central Asia - vital both for the traditional geo-political reasons that lay behind the imperialist ‘Great Game' in the 19th century, and because of the key energy sources and supply routes they contain (oil and gas). The issue at stake here is imperialist in the widest sense: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not being carried out at the behest of US oil companies hungry for quick profits, but because of the long-term needs of US state capitalism to maintain its waning global domination.
And Britain? When the blocs fell apart, Britain too began to look for a more ‘independent' path, as shown by its willingness to sabotage US efforts during the Balkans war in the 90s. But as a distinctly second rate power ‘independence' is an ever-receding mirage and since 2001 and the ‘War on Terror' in particular the British bourgeoisie has got itself more and more entangled with US military projects in the Middle East and Central Asia. Indeed in Afghanistan it is in the uncomfortable position of serving in the frontline of NATO forces, with its often poorly-equipped troops left exposed to an increasingly confident Taliban insurgency.
As more and more people, not least the families of soldiers serving in Afghanistan, begin to look for the reasons for this war, the ruling class will not abandon its false justifications: Brown, for example, continues to sell the war as a means of preventing terrorist atrocities in London or Glasgow. At the same time we are subjected to diversionary debates like the one about whether or not more money should be spent on buying the latest equipment for the troops, when the real questions are these: why is this society in a constant state of war; and how can we fight against war and the system that spawns it?



Graham 4/9/9.


http://en.internationalism.org/wr/327/afghan-mission

[The Douche]

1) It also gets rich off the US invasion, and having NATO forces protect it's infrastructure. Of course there will be issues on which the native bourgeoisie conflict with imperialism.

2) It is a potentially vital pipeline route. It is also right next to Pakistan, a nuclear country with a large islamist movement which the US/NATO needs to keep in check.

3) There are political profits and monetary profits, certain organizations/people have made a lot of money off of the war, like Haliburton, Cheney's old company. It has also allowed for the swelling of the military budget, which means profits.

4) NATO is an imperialist organization.

5) The US wants seeks to build an economic empire, of open markets with cheap labor, not a colonial empire ruled from the white house. Imperialism is not stuck in the 19th century. (or 20th, for that matter) Imperialism quickly began to change after WW2, with the emergence of the UN/LoN and the IMF/World Bank etc.

[Rafiq]

I'm sorta debating a friend on facebook, and he brings up these issues:



He also claims that "planned economies and workers' control of the means of production caused 50+ million deaths in china," but for some reason I find this claim less worth refuting.

1) The established Afghan government repeatedly defies and embarrasses the US. Especially Karzai

How?

2) There is almost no industry or natural resources in Afghanistan

Ask him if he knows what a poppy plant is. Drugs are one of the biggest reasons for wars, along with arms and oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drugroutemap.gif

Controlling drug routes is vital for empires.

‎3) We've spent far more money on the war that we would ever get back

Everyone makes mistakes... The US bourgeoisie never learn..

Guess what, you aren't going to get any money back, war or no wars, because guess what? Capitalism doesn't work!

4) The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation, not a war the US embarked upon unilaterally

Even if that's true, NATO is equally Imperialist. And the U.S. DID embark upon such an operation.

‎5) The US would gain almost nothing from having an empire and would be unable to manage it. Even the British Empire, the greatest empire in history, collapsed under the fatigue that empire managing necessitates.

Gain nothing? It's called power, controlling capital flow, ect.

link him some Marx.

Even if the United States didn't want to be an empire, it would have to. The Bourgeoisie overproduced and needed to expand markets, after that happened, they got so dependant on foreign labour, recources, they needed to expand to do so. What a fucking dumbshit,

as if the British were the first empire. Empires have been around for 10K years, the British probably knew that "It's hard to manage." from history, (The Romans, Chinese, ECT. ECT.).

That's like saying "The British would gain nothing from having an Empire, the Roman empire collapsed, ect. ect." in fucking 1677.



There is a lot of evidence that the U.S. was planning to invade before 9/11, anyway. Afghanistan is a major necessity to the global drug trade, forms a strategic base against China or Iran. Think about it, all they had to do was get rid of the ragtag taliban and it's theirs.

The U.S. will literally invade any country in that region that has an isolated government in the stone age, with no international friends, a good scapegoat, ect.

Maybe we should be asking why the U.S. Wouldn't invade a country like afghanistan.

[Rafiq]

We need Khad in here...

[Psy]

‎3) We've spent far more money on the war that we would ever get back

Everyone makes mistakes... The US bourgeoisie never learn..

Guess what, you aren't going to get any money back, war or no wars, because guess what? Capitalism doesn't work!

Well the US military is the a very inefficient fighting force in terms of labor value required to supply and maintain its forces in relation to the capabilities of those forces.

Of course for the opportunists in the military bureaucracy that is a good thing as it means huge kick backs from suppliers to the US military for their support in keeping the US military wasteful.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Afghanistan is rich with minerals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
BS that there are no natural resources in Afghanistan that the imperialists might want. Plus like others have already pointed out the geopolitics of it, the chance for new markets, sweatshop labor, etc. We didn't go into Iraq just because it had oil, the opportunity for a nation to open up to markets is enough incentive to start beating the war drums wouldn't you think?

[Phonic]

The established Afghan government repeatedly defies and embarrasses the US. Especially Karzai

What? How dare a nation defy the might American Empire" the nerve! Embarress the US? How DARE.

he sounds like a tosspot

Anyhoo, workers control didn't kill 50 million chinese, guns and starvation did.

[gorillafuck]

Anyhoo, workers control didn't kill 50 million chinese, guns and starvation did.Actually, nothing killed 50 million in China.

[Phonic]

Actually, nothing killed 50 million in China.

myp oint being that democratic workplaces don't kill people, it's just a stupid statement

anyhoo, all wars are imperialist, inherently

[Rafiq]

I'm sorta debating a friend on facebook, and he brings up these issues:



He also claims that "planned economies and workers' control of the means of production caused 50+ million deaths in china," but for some reason I find this claim less worth refuting.

What a joke, There was no proletariat in China, firstly, most people were of the peasantry.

Secondly, the highest and most logical estimate is around fifteen million, however, this was due to a famine that occurred.

*One most note that before Mao Tse-Dung, China experienced yearly famines similar to the one that occurred under Mao.

Even Truman was impressed that Mao had managed, for the first time in nearly a century, to feed all of China.

Thirdly, there was no workers control over the means of production in China.

You have to understand that these types of arguments have/will always fail. 100 million people died of famine in India because of Capitalism. Private property literally kills more people in three decades than the highest estimate that "communism" has killed (100 million).

[IndependentCitizen]

Actually, there's loads of mineral resources - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

[KurtFF8]

1) The established Afghan government repeatedly defies and embarrasses the US. Especially KarzaiFor this point, just because an imperial "puppet state" is set up doesn't mean that it will function as intended. Many claim that the "Soviet Satellite states" were puppet states, yet there was constant conflict (politically, and perhaps mostly behind the scenes) between Eastern Europe and the USSR. And Karzai has been in power for a long time and while was set up by the US, doesn't mean that he will always see following Washington's instructions as the best course of action for his government.

And the ruling classes, as mentioned before, are not some omnipotent beings that are incapable of mistakes. <--this should be the most important counter point in my opinion.

As for the mineral resources, from what I understand they were discovered long after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. So perhaps originally the continued operation was of more geopolitical strategic interests and direct resource interest (in Afghanistan). Although I don't think I know enough about this to comment too in depth.

[PhoenixAsh]

The established Afghan government repeatedly defies and embarrasses the US. Especially Karzai

* And? What has that to do with it?

2) There is almost no industry or natural resources in Afghanistan
‎
* Natural gas for example. Iron. Gems. Ore...and several other mineral resources.
The country is riddled with them. THe only reason they are not produced was the civil war.

There are also geo political strategic reasons.

3) We've spent far more money on the war that we would ever get back

* I seriously doubt that. However...not all imperialist attempts go to plan. Which is a consideration. Also...you are investing. You are buying a product: political and strategic jumping points and therat factors against other countries.

4) The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation, not a war the US embarked upon unilaterally

* O yes they did...and after the 911 attacks they invoked the NATO charter: an attack on one is an attack on all. Remember Bushes little speech about either with us or against us? NATO, as has been pointed out, is a global defense initiative. After the fall of the USSR their policy changed to protect not only the territorial integrity of member nations but also the political and economic interests of its members nations.

‎5) The US would gain almost nothing from having an empire and would be unable to manage it. Even the British Empire, the greatest empire in history, collapsed under the fatigue that empire managing necessitates.

* There are more ways than one to run an empire. Hence the friendly government form. The US has been running an empire for much of its history.

[VeritablyV]

I'm sure there are resources in Afghanistan, but nonetheless I can imagine it allows for more economic domination, and perhaps even rebuilding the nation via American construction companies which was the case in Iraq too.

We're also flanking Iran by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. It's definitely an Imperialist War, colonialism is still very rampant. It's just we don't have to deal with the political aspect so much since we now merely economically dominate them. Oh, and puppet dictatorships, like Saddam was originally.