5 ms·

There's always a stated reason for these middle east US wars, and then there's a real reason. I can work out Iraq but what is the real reason for the Afghanista

There's always a stated reason for these middle east US wars, and then there's a real reason. I can work out Iraq but what is the real reason for the Afghanistan war?

biesnecker 5y ago
If it had turned into a friendly, America-loving democracy that would tolerate our bases, then it’s an unsinkable aircraft carrier bordering Russia and China. Pretty good real estate.
- handrous 5y ago
  It'd have to be very America-friendly for that motivation to make sense, to make up for being situated such that keeping it supplied relies on the cooperation of one or more potential adversaries.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    "Install a tin pot who owes us" is a more likely route to a military base. Supplies are an issue, hence why you don't see the military doing much complaining about letting Bagram go.
- fuoqi 5y ago
  You mean "democracy"? Let's be honest, US (and to a lesser extent EU) can tolerate just about any atrocity performed by a "friendly" regime if there is enough to gain from it. There are countless examples past and present across the globe.
- yardie 5y ago
  The last time the US installed bases in a nation bordering Russia, Russia parked a nuclear missile battery 90 miles off the Florida coast. China is exerting soft power now by buying up properties and ports in the Caribbean and Latam. Make no mistake, if a real US base had been activated in Afghanistan China, or Russia, would have planted one in Venezuela.
pjc50 5y ago
The same: revenge for 9/11. And once it had been started, it had to be kept going to avoid losing face. It's not a coincidence that the withdrawal is before the 20th anniversary.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hn8788 5y ago
It being a breeding ground for extremism was the reason. In order to stop the Soviets, we (the USA) pushed Afghan society towards religious extremism because it was the only way it was "acceptable" for Afghans to kill other Afghans that supported the Soviets. After it was all over, we just packed our bags and left instead of helping them build a society that wasn't based on religious extremism. When I was in the military, they told us that we shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan, but we're stuck cleaning up the mess made decades prior.
- fuoqi 5y ago
  >we just packed our bags and left instead of helping them build a society that wasn't based on religious extremism Yeah, let's completely destroy the relatively stable secular state built with the help of those evil Russians (DRA was able to fight for 3 years after the Soviet army has left) using religious extremists amply supplied with western weapons and funds, and only after that we will help Afghans to built a prosperous society. Maybe. I think there are certain parallels to be found with Iran.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    As usual, reality is far more nuanced than the stuff that gets you easy virtue points. It wasn't a stable secular state when we started influencing things. There was a king. The commies overthrew the king, the US didn't do much of anything at this point (because we just got done with Vietnam and there was zero appetite for anything that could lead to more of that). The commies started infighting. The soviets picked favorites. The US didn't want to see the soviets build a total satellite state so we gave the other guys weapons and training via Pakistan who were the ones who fanned the extremist flames. 35yr later here we are.
    - fuoqi 5y ago
      >The commies started infighting. What? 1978s PDPA coup has begun from assassination which was allegedly done with CIA help. USSR didn't have any reason to destabilize the relatively friendly Daoud regime. When shit hit the fan, they simply chose PDPA as an ideologically close force. I would attribute US with intentionally destabilizing Afghanistan. They didn't want to lose ground in the region, especially after the puppet schah got overthrown in the Iran's Islamic revolution (1978-1979). After the initial Soviet intervention the country was stable for quite a while. There were insurgent pockets in the countryside and cells in Pakistan under ISI umbrella, but nothing seriously threatening. And DRA had support of the populace (otherwise it wouldn't have lasted 3 years without Soviets), not unlike the current (fallen) Afghanistan government. >The US didn't want to see the soviets build a total satellite state So let's wreak total havoc in this state to promote our agenda? Who cares about democracy, prosperity, human life and other ideals which are foundation of the western society if we are to buy into its propaganda? And we certainly will not get bitten back by the created chaos... >Pakistan who were the ones who fanned the extremist flames Are you seriously implying that the US didn't know who are they working with in Afghanistan? FYI in 1985 Reagan's government has officially started supplying Stingers to mujahidins. And I am quite sure that CIA has closely worked with the forces on the ground far before that. Also considering that Saudis (well-known democratic states, who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11) also co-founded this campaign, I highly doubt that the US didn't know really well who exactly they support. It's far from the first time when the US has supported really questionable forces to get an advantage in the Big Game.
phkahler 5y ago
See the movie "Charlie Wilson's War". Apparently it started out as an opportunity to annoy Russia. It probably persisted to feed the war machine.
handrous 5y ago
At the time there was a lot of talk of the usual "making Afghanistan safe for American business" thing, that's been the actual motivation in some historical US invasions of countries with very weak militaries. For example, a Slate article debunking one of the more popular specific claims of that sort, published Dec. 2001: https://slate.com/culture/2001/12/is-the-afghan-war-about-an-oil-pipeline.html https://slate.com/culture/2001/12/is-the-afghan-war-about-an... I'm not sure I find its debunking as complete or convincing as the author seems to think it is.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Revenge. Taliban didn't want to turn over the people who attacked us so we wrecked their country for 20yr. Frankly I think we should have worked harder to get them to go after OBL and Al-Qaeda for us since they could go after them in ways that we cannot and that would probably have a greater deterring effect on any future people with dreams of attacking the first world.

There's always a stated reason for these middle east US wars, and then there's a real reason. I can work out Iraq but what is the real reason for the Afghanistan war?

biesnecker 5y ago

If it had turned into a friendly, America-loving democracy that would tolerate our bases, then it’s an unsinkable aircraft carrier bordering Russia and China. Pretty good real estate.

handrous 5y ago
It'd have to be very America-friendly for that motivation to make sense, to make up for being situated such that keeping it supplied relies on the cooperation of one or more potential adversaries.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  "Install a tin pot who owes us" is a more likely route to a military base. Supplies are an issue, hence why you don't see the military doing much complaining about letting Bagram go.
fuoqi 5y ago
You mean "democracy"? Let's be honest, US (and to a lesser extent EU) can tolerate just about any atrocity performed by a "friendly" regime if there is enough to gain from it. There are countless examples past and present across the globe.
yardie 5y ago
The last time the US installed bases in a nation bordering Russia, Russia parked a nuclear missile battery 90 miles off the Florida coast. China is exerting soft power now by buying up properties and ports in the Caribbean and Latam. Make no mistake, if a real US base had been activated in Afghanistan China, or Russia, would have planted one in Venezuela.

pjc50 5y ago

The same: revenge for 9/11. And once it had been started, it had to be kept going to avoid losing face. It's not a coincidence that the withdrawal is before the 20th anniversary.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hn8788 5y ago

It being a breeding ground for extremism was the reason. In order to stop the Soviets, we (the USA) pushed Afghan society towards religious extremism because it was the only way it was "acceptable" for Afghans to kill other Afghans that supported the Soviets. After it was all over, we just packed our bags and left instead of helping them build a society that wasn't based on religious extremism. When I was in the military, they told us that we shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan, but we're stuck cleaning up the mess made decades prior.

fuoqi 5y ago
>we just packed our bags and left instead of helping them build a society that wasn't based on religious extremism Yeah, let's completely destroy the relatively stable secular state built with the help of those evil Russians (DRA was able to fight for 3 years after the Soviet army has left) using religious extremists amply supplied with western weapons and funds, and only after that we will help Afghans to built a prosperous society. Maybe. I think there are certain parallels to be found with Iran.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  As usual, reality is far more nuanced than the stuff that gets you easy virtue points. It wasn't a stable secular state when we started influencing things. There was a king. The commies overthrew the king, the US didn't do much of anything at this point (because we just got done with Vietnam and there was zero appetite for anything that could lead to more of that). The commies started infighting. The soviets picked favorites. The US didn't want to see the soviets build a total satellite state so we gave the other guys weapons and training via Pakistan who were the ones who fanned the extremist flames. 35yr later here we are.
  - fuoqi 5y ago
    >The commies started infighting. What? 1978s PDPA coup has begun from assassination which was allegedly done with CIA help. USSR didn't have any reason to destabilize the relatively friendly Daoud regime. When shit hit the fan, they simply chose PDPA as an ideologically close force. I would attribute US with intentionally destabilizing Afghanistan. They didn't want to lose ground in the region, especially after the puppet schah got overthrown in the Iran's Islamic revolution (1978-1979). After the initial Soviet intervention the country was stable for quite a while. There were insurgent pockets in the countryside and cells in Pakistan under ISI umbrella, but nothing seriously threatening. And DRA had support of the populace (otherwise it wouldn't have lasted 3 years without Soviets), not unlike the current (fallen) Afghanistan government. >The US didn't want to see the soviets build a total satellite state So let's wreak total havoc in this state to promote our agenda? Who cares about democracy, prosperity, human life and other ideals which are foundation of the western society if we are to buy into its propaganda? And we certainly will not get bitten back by the created chaos... >Pakistan who were the ones who fanned the extremist flames Are you seriously implying that the US didn't know who are they working with in Afghanistan? FYI in 1985 Reagan's government has officially started supplying Stingers to mujahidins. And I am quite sure that CIA has closely worked with the forces on the ground far before that. Also considering that Saudis (well-known democratic states, who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11) also co-founded this campaign, I highly doubt that the US didn't know really well who exactly they support. It's far from the first time when the US has supported really questionable forces to get an advantage in the Big Game.

phkahler 5y ago

See the movie "Charlie Wilson's War". Apparently it started out as an opportunity to annoy Russia. It probably persisted to feed the war machine.

handrous 5y ago

At the time there was a lot of talk of the usual "making Afghanistan safe for American business" thing, that's been the actual motivation in some historical US invasions of countries with very weak militaries. For example, a Slate article debunking one of the more popular specific claims of that sort, published Dec. 2001: https://slate.com/culture/2001/12/is-the-afghan-war-about-an-oil-pipeline.html https://slate.com/culture/2001/12/is-the-afghan-war-about-an... I'm not sure I find its debunking as complete or convincing as the author seems to think it is.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Revenge. Taliban didn't want to turn over the people who attacked us so we wrecked their country for 20yr. Frankly I think we should have worked harder to get them to go after OBL and Al-Qaeda for us since they could go after them in ways that we cannot and that would probably have a greater deterring effect on any future people with dreams of attacking the first world.