Why exactly Afghanistan

Why is Afghanistan so important? First Russian wanted it and lost a war. Now America tries so hard to win hearts of Afghani people by buying their beloved president with tens of millions in cash:

Which Is More Corrupt: Afghanistan or America?

Afghanistan is a poor country, with no oil, no natural resources, no gold mines, no raw materials for nuclear weapons. Really why exactly Afghanistan? I don't watch television, I don't read newspapers, I refuse to be indoctrinated. Can someone, please, explain me this in plain, simple language.

 

Why is Afghanistan so important? No Taliban, no boom. No boom, Americans happy.


Of course, this doesn't take into account that there are a few other countries giving the Taliban major support. Like Pakistan for instance, but they have "Nukes", so military action against that nation is is highly unlikely.

 

You have to go back much farther as even Alexander the Great invaded Afghanistan as well as a whole horde (no pun intended) have either conquered or attempted to do so. In the past the region was a cross road to richer lands who more powerful neighbors wished access to. In the pre-modern era Great Britain and Russia both saw the area as a gateway into their respective empires, too valuable to be left at risk.

In what we may call the modern era, Soviet Russia saw the nation as just another buffer state they wished to create on their border to keep the big bad capitalist's at a respectful distance from the holy )) motherland. America in the eighties saw the Afghan resistance as a chance to weaken the Soviet Union and pay them back for Korea and Vietnam.

As Takao points out prior to 9-11 America could not care less about Afghanistan, but the loss of three thousand people, mostly civilians, changed this dynamic. There was some hope and effort to effect change "cleanly", but the reality on the ground and the Iraq War moved the US to employ the time honored (sarcasm intended) traditional approach to dealing with the region. Bribes and giving a blind eye to various criminal activities became the norm. Throw in the American custom of not being willing to tell the local 's to go stuff themselves (politest way I could phrase it) because it would be an admission that we could not bring truth, justice and the American way to a bunch of 14th century fanatics who could not recognize such concepts if they reared up and bit them in their collective nether regions.

It was said before the First World War that if it was possible to cut out Serbia from Southern Europe, drag it out to sea and allow it to sink into oblivion, this act alone would be of great benefit to humanity.

Some ideas transcend time and location.

 

Nice training area...If no Afghanistan we'll have to do live training elsewhere...It might sound stupid...But the top of the British armed forces ...rue the day they lost that nice training area across the Irish sea.

 

This is an interesting paradigm but the Great War would have happend whether Serbia ever existed or not. Also a conflict that is in the background of Afghanistan affairs might have revealed elsewhere. It appears to me that great powers need some unimportant distant theaters to release tensions or to start hostilities far from own doorstep or as urqh expressed himself so nicely:

 

Afghanistan lies between Russia and India, as said above a buffer between the British Empire and the Russian, then the Soviet Empire and the US Empire ( I use the term loosely). Like when Poland lay between Russia and Germany it was always going to be a battleground.

Urgh's comment has some grounds too, cynics amongst us have always believed the powers that be in the UK like to have a small scale "operation" going somewhere. British troops usually have experience of being under fire somewhere ( N. Ireland, Aden, Kenya, Malaya etc etc) should a major shooting war come along.

 

They attacked us, hello? As for occupying the place, I think the price has begun to outweigh the advantages. I suppose the people in charge think having a base in central Asia is worth it in global strategic terms.

 

As for why America went there, that's where Bin Laden & his thugs were. The question is, why are we still there.

 

Your not wrong....British troops have been involved somewhere in the world every year bar one...since the second world war...Thats not a criticism...its just what is.

 

US strategic policy wants to chalk it up as a "win", by tossing out the fundamentalist Taliban and bringing in a Western style democracy. What they didn't forsee was that major elements in the country were not ready for that.
As Colin Powell was quoted "You break it you own it", so the US is committed into propping up a semi-corrupt, semi-inept Afgan government. Rather ironic, as it's much the same situation as the Soviets were doing, trying to prop up a communist Afgan government in the 1980s.

The US was hoping that a new Afgan government modelled on Western principles would turn out to be like Japan, Germany or Italy, former enemies and dictatorships that were transformed into Western style democracies. Obviously turned out to be much tougher than first thought.

Taliban was not a major threat to the US, the radical militant Islam of Al Queda was.

 

With all due respect, "they" (ie the Taliban) did not attack you, Al Quaeda did. Since the Taliban in Afganistan had no extradition treaty and were unlikely to turn over a fellow Muslim to the (infidel) Americans, the US decided to invade Afganistan and overthrow the regime. Would the US have been better off to just try to send in a hit team to eliminate Bin Laden in Afganistan (as they ultimately did in Pakistan) is up to debate, depending on how things work out in the end.

Frankly I see it more along the lines of Blair backing up Bush, as payback for the times that the US has supported \Britain.
If 9/11 hadn't happened then I certainly don't see the UK acting on it's own, and I don't see how they could have predicted/planned for a training ground in Afganistan.

 

And Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan under the full protection of the Taliban. That makes them complicit and fully worthy of being attacked.

 

We have to be careful with such logic.

The United States (and other western nations) arm, train, supply, advise and offer a measure of protection a legion of nations who use the military assets in ways that occasionally harm innocents and non-combatants to meet their goals. Are we then responsible for their acts?

The Taliban was simply in our way, so we took them out to get our real target.

 

Hhhhmmmm, no, I have to disagree. Al Qaeda was a fully operational army with bases, logistics, diplomatic and logistical support all provided by the government of Afghanistan (the Taliban).

Right now, we're supplying the opposition in Syria with support (not that I agree with that). But, that's a different thing than giving them entire bases in the US, training facilities, passports, diplomatic cover, etc.

 

Frankly I see it more along the lines of Blair backing up Bush, as payback for the times that the US has supported \Britain.
If 9/11 hadn't happened then I certainly don't see the UK acting on it's own, and I don't see how they could have predicted/planned for a training ground in Afganistan.


Agreed but 9/11 was a long time ago and we're still there and to what end. Once the allies pull out it will descend again into chaos. We wouldn't have gone in on our own we haven't done that in 30yrs (Falklands) .

 

Get the Afghan mining industry into gear properly & watch the money come rolling in.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20708548

 

Meanwhile, I've been reading a bit about this matter. First, I was interested in the number of civilian victims. To me this appears very serious. I don't know what strategic interest may justify such a large number of killed civilians:

Next, I have studied what could be the real reason and I cannot ignore the impression that Afhanistan is the key to control Iran and consequently the Arab Gulf. Who controls Afghanistan has Iran and the whole Arab oil in his pocket.

Furthermore, as our friend ptimms has suggested the presence in Afghanistan means control of Indian subcontinent and several states created from the former USSR.

To me, the choice of target is more clear now. However, the number of civil victims is a bit too high considering very precise weapons in hands of invaders.

 

Mining. Rare earth etc. Needed for cell phones- batteries. Fortunately, Canada has found a stash on our turf. ..But http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-earths

 

Just get a mutual defence pact with the US...they've kept us battle hardened for decades...