Why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan?

[pugzleyca3]

If the government believes Bin Laden is in Pakistan, why are we ramping up our presence in Afghanistan?

Why are we there at all at this point?

Ok, maybe someone knows much more about this than I do, but seems to me that we're there to preserve "our" oil interests.

But what excuse is being offered to the public for our presence over there?

Maybe I missed it... or is it the "We've got to get rid of the Taliban so we don't have to fight them here" excuse?

[ninakat]

Poppies. Oil routes. Strategic location.

And that might look like Emerald City, but it's just a gigantic camouflaged oil rig at the end of the yellow brick road.

[nathan28]

If the government believes Bin Laden is in Pakistan, why are we ramping up our presence in Afghanistan?

Why are we there at all at this point?

Ok, maybe someone knows much more about this than I do, but seems to me that we're there to preserve "our" oil interests.

But what excuse is being offered to the public for our presence over there?

Maybe I missed it... or is it the "We've got to get rid of the Taliban so we don't have to fight them here" excuse?

rhymes with "Hopium"

[pugzleyca3]

Oh, now you are all giving the REAL reasons of why we are there.

What is the excuse given by the govt.? Or are they so sure of themselves, they no longer have to have a reason for waging war for years?

It just is?

[Perelandra]

There are too many moving parts in Afghanistan to be sanguine about the outcome. It is a much more complex situation than Iraq, if for no other reason than because the Taliban are a far more effective fighting force than anything the United States encountered in Iraq, the terrain far more unfavorable for the U.S. military, and the political actors much more cynical about American capabilities.

The next U.S. president will have to make a painful decision. He must either order a long-term holding action designed to protect the Karzai government, launch a major offensive that includes Pakistan but has insufficient forces, or withdraw. Geopolitically, withdrawal makes a great deal of sense. Psychologically, it could unhinge the region and regenerate al Qaeda-like forces. Politically, it would not be something a new president could do. But as he ponders Iraq, the future president will have to address Afghanistan. And as he ponders Afghanistan, he will have to think about the Russians.

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2008/10/01/the-new-president-and-the-global-landscape.aspx
That's the pragmatist viewpoint.
I don't even think they're offering any new excuses, just that we're right to be there.

[pugzleyca3]

Oh nevermind, here it is:

"In a brief written statement issued Tuesday by the White House, Obama declared that "the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border." "

Ummm... does this statement make any sense at all?

Link coming:

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=23040

[barracuda]

It's all part of giving China and Iran pearl necklaces composed of U.S. client states, as a nice gift.

[compared2what?]

To get to the other side.

And that's a serious answer, btw. I'll try to find a map that illustrates the point.

[ninakat]

This looks like a pretty good overview, and includes the map pictured below.

Pipeline to 9/11
http://www.viewzone.com/pipeline.html

[compared2what?]

Totally. I was thinking more along these lines. But only because they're pretty much the same goddamn lines, as they have been since the first century AD. So if there's armed conflict and it's in that part of the world, you can pretty much take it to the bank that they're the reason. They always are.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

rhymes with "Hopium"

[Perelandra]

I knew it wouldn't be long, thanks nathan and CC for the laugh.

[Penguin]

Yeah. Thats just ... perfect.

[yathrib]

My take on the original question: There are many complex, geopolitical reasons. Ha ha! Just kidding. It's so that kkkonservatives who say that Obama is a commie, Muslim, illegally alien traitor won't be able to say that Obama is a commie, Muslim, illegally alien traitor with a small ****.

[elfismiles]

They gave their reasons back during the Presidential campaign:

Why I'll Never Support Interventionist Warmonger Obama
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=19978

Biden's invocation of 911 / War on Terror and Obama's desire for more troops in Afghanistan ... @ 4 minutes 10 seconds into this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ugYiF5tSI

"Or should you believe Barack Obama who said a year ago 'we need to send two more combat battalions to Afghanistan.' <sheeple cheers> The fact of the matter is al-Qaeda and the Taleban, the people who actually attacked us on 911, they've regrouped in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they are plotting new attacks. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has echoed Barack's call for more troops. John McCain was wrong and Barack Obama was right. <sheeple cheers>"

If the government believes Bin Laden is in Pakistan, why are we ramping up our presence in Afghanistan?

Why are we there at all at this point?

Ok, maybe someone knows much more about this than I do, but seems to me that we're there to preserve "our" oil interests.

But what excuse is being offered to the public for our presence over there?

Maybe I missed it... or is it the "We've got to get rid of the Taliban so we don't have to fight them here" excuse?