Why is the US in Afghanistan?

Rogers makes some excellent points. I believe the resolution he's referring to is described by one Israeli newspaper here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054234.html

Most of the world would like to wave a magic wand and have a 2-state solution in place, with Israel withdrawing from the illegally occupied territory, the Palastinian state (including Hamas) recognising Israel's right to exist and Israel having good relations with their neighbours.

Sadly, we're still a long way from this picture and, while each US administration consistently toes the same line, there is no compelling reason for Israel to compromise on anything. I really don't see any progress on the "middle east" issue at this time.

Back to Afghanistan, Rogers is quite correct that the BBC article explains the objective of ISAF, however it doesn't explain what Operation Enduring Freedom is all about (who comes up with these names??)

The BBC article suggests that there are communication problems between the NATO Isaf mission and OEF. Does anyone really know what OEF is all about?

BTW, I agree with the comment that Afghanistan (and Iraq) need a police force much more than external military force. There's no mention of demonstrations in the US about troops being deployed in Afghanisan. Are people supportive or just apathetic about this?

Personally, I think there's as much confusion as support or apathy. I don't see a consensus.

If you want an answer to this, simply check very recent history. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Simply take out the 'warm water ports' out, and you have a winner. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tstv_lover

Yes, I know that NATO has a presence in Afghanistan but the US is also operating outside of the NATO force (Isaf). Isaf seems to have a stated objective - albeit pretty vague - but I'm unclear what the mission objective of the other US troops is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm

Is it to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" as President Obama said today (guess that he should know!), to destroy the Taleban, to maintain strategic control in the area, to find Osama bin Laden or something else.

Without understanding the mission objective it's impossible to understand if progress is being achieved and what constitutes success.

---

Among other things, the U.S. provides security for most of the ISAF troops. The U.S. also duplicates what most of them are doing in training missions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Distance

If you want an answer to this, simply check very recent history. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Simply take out the 'warm water ports' out, and you have a winner. :wink:

---

You're saying the U.S. is trying to stop Russia from regaining access to warm water ports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tstv_lover

Rogers makes some excellent points. I believe the resolution he's referring to is described by one Israeli newspaper here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054234.html

Most of the world would like to wave a magic wand and have a 2-state solution in place, with Israel withdrawing from the illegally occupied territory, the Palastinian state (including Hamas) recognising Israel's right to exist and Israel having good relations with their neighbours.

Sadly, we're still a long way from this picture and, while each US administration consistently toes the same line, there is no compelling reason for Israel to compromise on anything. I really don't see any progress on the "middle east" issue at this time.

Back to Afghanistan, Rogers is quite correct that the BBC article explains the objective of ISAF, however it doesn't explain what Operation Enduring Freedom is all about (who comes up with these names??)

The BBC article suggests that there are communication problems between the NATO Isaf mission and OEF. Does anyone really know what OEF is all about?

BTW, I agree with the comment that Afghanistan (and Iraq) need a police force much more than external military force. There's no mention of demonstrations in the US about troops being deployed in Afghanisan. Are people supportive or just apathetic about this?

---

Don't take the BBC or the British military in general too seriously. They've been licking their rear end ever since the British commander was left out of the briefing for Al Malakis push into Basrah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tstv_lover

Maybe a dumb question - maybe not - but what is the reason that the US has a large (and growing) contingent in Afghanistan?

---

There was intelligence that said that bin Laden was in or around Afghanistan, so the U.S. & NATO went there. I don't know where you been since Sept. 2001, but now you know and knowing is half the battle.

The question should have been why were we in Iraq? Bad intelligence, revenge, or oil? I don't know, but what I do know is that Iran is out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyFoxtrot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Distance

If you want an answer to this, simply check very recent history. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Simply take out the 'warm water ports' out, and you have a winner. :wink:

---

You're saying the U.S. is trying to stop Russia from regaining access to warm water ports?

---

No, I meant the motives are pretty much the same. The Us are there obviously for oil, the trade route (or pipelines, if you like) natural resources and a straight way into Iran next. Iraq's taken already...Iran's next.

to protect your faggot ass

Oh. Another teenage closet queen trying to sound like a tough guy. That's ok. Keep it up, queer queer queer 321. Punks are fun to laugh at.