Why We Are In Afghanistan.

[David Zephyr]

Are we in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban? No, we are cutting deals with them and have been for years now.

Are we in Afghanistan warring against Al-Quadea? Our government acknowledges there are less than 100 of Al-Qaeda. With the surge, we will have 100,000 troops there. That's not a rationale either.

Are we in Afghanistan to save Pakistan? Hardly.

Are we in Afghanistan to eliminate the opium trade. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

So why are we there? Why will we soon have 100,000 troops there? What's the rationale?

Iran.

The Saudis have nodded at an attack there. Today the United Arab Emirates have spoken in favor of the same. Europe has cancelled all Iranian flights into the E.U.

100,000 troops in Afghanistan without a rationale? No, there's a rationale and it's right next door.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Yep. NuttyYahoo's paranoia fueled genocidal crusade is looking more likely every day.

Sickening. I have no other words for it. :puke:

[IScreamSundays]

2. Do you have a link

regarding the cancellation of flights? I read about the refusal to refuel yesterday but nothing about the flights being cancelled.

[Wilms]

3. Your thread title should read differently.

I thought you were questioning why we're in Afghanistan, but you're really promoting attacking Iran.

[David Zephyr]

7. No promotion. No question.

Wilms, I opposed the initial invasion of Afghanistan when the majority at the DU supported it, and when the great majority of Americans supported it. Read the DU archives from 2001.

A handful of us here at the DU saw the very early signs of the pivoting the war in Afghanistan to Iraq long before most. People like Wiliam Pitt, myself, IndianaGreen were mocked at the time for saying what we saw coming.

The promoters of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities are not just limited to the usual suspects like John Bolton, the Neocons, Israel, but now a lot of Sunni Muslims are speaking openly about it.

Consider: The U.S. has clearly stated that our upcoming "mission" with the surge of troops in Afghanistan will be to move into Kandahar. That's less than 300 miles from the Iranian border.

[EFerrari]

4. Actually, I think Pakistan is one of the reasons we're in Afghanistan.

We want to try to control their proxy war with India and also try to shape their internal power structure.

That we suck at doing those things has never stopped us in the least, has it?

[David Zephyr]

10. The surge in troops is for the big military move to Kandahar

on the opposite side from the Pakistan border. It's near the Iranian border.

[Robb]

13. No, it's not.

Please look at a map. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

20. (See #19 below)

Believe me, the idiots running Iran know our troops are moving westward.

[unhappycamper]

5. Good Question.

Why are we in Afghanistan?

[DCBob]

6. So weve been planning an attack on Iran since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001??

Wow that's some serious long term strategery.
:wow:

[David Zephyr]

8. I don't know about the "we" part, but...

Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator John McCain have both been outspoken about this for a very "long term" as has the neocons, many in power in the UK. And of course, Israel is poised to strike and has said they will strike if they feel the need to. Now many Sunni Muslims are also speaking out for this.

The marker has moved far beyond loonies like John Bolton calling for a strike.

And if I'm wrong, then please give me the rationale for having 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in our longest war. And, by the way, the mobilization there will be moving westward, not toward Pakistan, but into Kandahar, a stone's throw from the Iranian border.

[Robb]

12. Geography does not support your belief.

I suggest you look at a map, Kandahar is much closer to Pakistan than to Iran. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

19. Correction noted.

You are correct and I should have been more clear in that we will be mobilizing our troops westward away from the so-called hold out of Al Qaeda (and, we are told bin Ladenl) along the northeast border of Afghanistan and Pakistan and into Kandahar.

As you know and pointed out correctly, Pakistan wraps around a great part of Afghanistan, but we are moving our troops west, not east. Why now?

[Robb]

22. You're still quite mistaken. This may help:

...Note Kandahar is in the southeast portion of Afghanistan. Marjah, where we recently were en masse, is in Helmand province, just south of Lashkar Gah on this map.

Marjah --> Kandahar is traveling west to east, not east to west, as you suggest. :)

[David Zephyr]

23. Thank you for making my point for me. Marjah was the pilot for Kandahar.

Jeez. What do you not understand.

The military operation in Marjah, that you refer to, which took place at the beginning of this year was a "pilot program" in Western Afghanistan. This is what Karzai's government called it. A "pilot program" with the bigger target of Kandahar. It was preparation for our military movement westward.

The operation in Marjah incorporated only between 15,000 to 20,000 troops. It was the first front (moving "westward" as I said and still say) of a far larger movement of troops which is now staging and being readied to move toward Kandahar from where they currently are now (again, westward).

With NATO troops added to the total of U.S. soldiers and Marines, that will take the entire military occupation of Afghanistan above 150,000 troops.

Since all reports have the mere 100 al qaeda members at the other end of the country, what is your rationalization for having 150,000 military personnel in that country?

The movement of troops is clearly moving westward from where it has been, of which Majah, was just the beginning. You make my point.

Whether it is a psychological or a real military threatening operation to the Iranian border, it is developing there. That is a fact.

[Robb]

25. Kandahar is EAST of Marjah. Not west. Troops are moving east.

Away from Iran. Toward Pak. :crazy:

Kandahar is not near the Iranian border. I'm being as polite as I can about this.

[David Zephyr]

27. OMG.

Of course, it is east of Marjah. Duhhh.

It was the first "pilot" move into the West.

You are not being polite, you are being obstinate.

Our forces are moving westward and Marjah was the pilot in that move.

And as I wrote in the OP, Kandahar is less than 300 miles from the Iranian Border.

[Robb]

28. "Kandahar is less than 300 miles from the Iranian Border"

It's also 40 miles from the Pakistan border. That would make it closer to Pak than Iran.

...How is moving from Marjah (the "pilot" as you say for the Kandahar operation) which is closer to Iran, to Kandahar, which is further away, somehow going to make things more tense for Iran?

If I'm being obstinate, it's because you're being thick. NATO/ISAF forces are moving generally eastward, not westward.

[Mimosa]

9. An ex-military buddy told me that in 2003

There used to be some odd map circulating the web about the consequences of an attack on Iran and WWIII. Does anybody remember it? It was posted on here as well as at the Speakeasy board.

[Bragi]

11. A Question to the OP

Why would the U.S need to put its troops into Afghanistan to mount a war with Iran? The U.S could have mounted an attack on Iran from Iraq, where it already had troops placed closer to Tehran than anywhere in Afghanistan.

Please explain.

[David Zephyr]

17. Multi-Front.

You are right that our Armed Forces are poised at Iran's western border in Iraq. Now, with the U.S.'s newly stated upcoming surge and move into Kandahar, we will be inching toward Iran's eastern border.

Israel has clearly stated that they will strike Iran's nuclear facilities if they feel it is necessary. We now see Sunni Muslims giving a nod to their doing so.

Certainly, the current lunatics that run Iran are keenly aware of the fact that our Armed Forces will soon be in Kandahar and that they will be surrounded by the U.S. (and NATO) armed forces on two fronts.

[amborin]

14. it'll provide the big distration for austerity cuts, a la Thatcher's war on Argentina

read that recently, but can't remember the source.....

[xiamiam]

15. what about the trans afghanistan pipeline? nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. Bibi's visit ot Washington...

has my eyebrows rasied. "Peace talks" indeed. There is something brewing.

[David Zephyr]

18. Yep.

Bibi was all cozy, cozy with making peace with the people of Palestine and moving forward with negotiations, but the rhetoric from both Obama and Bibi was nasty toward Hamas (Iran).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Because Bush want to show himself a "strong" leader and Obama want's to show he's tough.

It's always been a political PR war and still is.

[bemildred]

24. I think it's pretty much inertia at this point. nt

[BelgianMadCow]

26. I thought you were gonna simply post the map of oil in that entire region

:shrug: