Afghan Troop Deadline Extended Again: Guess Why?

A Poor Country is Really Quite a Prize

US Army Sargent and Afghan National Police officer during training at Chahar Dara, Afghanistan, on Aug. 28, 2010. Photo credit:  US Navy / Wikimedia (Public Domain)

How many times over the years have we heard promises that the United States would get out of Afghanistan by such-and-such a date, only to have those promises retracted due to exigent circumstances of one kind or another? Too many to count.

And now, just when we thought the longest war in American history was finally at an end, comes this headline:

US Military Commanders Favor Keeping Troops In Afghanistan Beyond 2016

Here’s the Associated Press lead on that story:

With the Taliban gaining new ground, US military commanders are arguing for keeping at least a few thousand American troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016, a move that would mark a departure from President Barack Obama’s current policy.

How fearsome a threat are the Taliban to “US interests,” compared to, say, any of the myriad other armies roaming the earth? The impact on our national security is debatable, to say the least. As for humanitarian concerns, we know that brutality and corruption characterize both sides in what is essentially a civil war — if it can be said that there are just two “sides” in that desperately poor country long riven by ethnic and clan rivalries.

We see how complex and tragic it all is every day. On the weekend, it was yet another example of what the US military obscenely calls “collateral damage” to innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time — the staff injured and killed by US bombs at the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz.

Why the never-ending carnage?

For another perspective on the importance of Afghanistan — the strategic importance — we invite you to click here and view an interesting treasure map of the region. We’ve run it in the past but it surely warrants renewed attention, given this latest proposal to commit American boots on the ground there for an indefinite future.

A good look at the map, which details the wealth of natural resources buried beneath the soil of Afghanistan, raises the question: Which “interests” actually stand to benefit from a prolonged US military presence in Afghanistan? When these troops are drawn, as they inevitably will be, into deadly combat, what exactly will they be sacrificing their lives for: the defense of liberty in the name of US security or the fattening of some corporation’s bottom line?

Related front page panorama photo credit: Development in Afghanistan (USAID Afghanistan / Flickr [Public Domain])

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

15 responses to “Afghan Troop Deadline Extended Again: Guess Why?”

  1. FiuToYou says:

    Why is this? Didn’t the military and the CIA get all the opium out of the fields yet? Pure BS!!!!

  2. margsview says:

    Last evening after I posted all of these comments with reference to bilaterals.org—all but one disappeared and quite frankly did not come back for viewing –(as only 5 comments were posted in total )–
    ……It appears that all of my postings are now displayed and therefore I owe an apology to the monitoring-editor,please consider this, as done.
    And I wish to also thank, said editor, for being so efficient in responding, as well as apt, in her/his assessment and corrective opinions..
    .I hope that more people will ck out bilaterals.org -(in fact so few actually understand the real devastating affects of these semi-trade deals–I am hoping more newsletters will encourage subscribers to ck out this site for great info)—As there is —not only in-depth info on the actual content of these quasi-trade deals, but summaries, analysis and all done globally, in 4 or 5 languages with room, open for comments on all posted….tc

  3. Robin says:

    It is not just the natural resources though that play a large part in it, but also opium which the CIA and other “intel” agencies use to fund other black ops.

  4. margsview says:

    Oh, okay I am being ‘content disabled’ or censored—fine

  5. From Our Facebook Page says:

    (Comment by reader Wm G Thompson) Gotta protect those poppies…for the Black-Ops budget.

  6. JM says:

    The article fails to mention that China has signed the deals for the resources just as they secured the deals for Iraqi oil. Contrary to common thought these wars aren’t about corporations but globalism. The intelligent response to terrorism is precise special operations raids but that does nothing to advance globalism. The endless effort to force the third world into the first world enables the carnage and the Chinese and Russians run around scooping up the assets.

    • Chuck (Smithfix). Smith says:

      The world wants trade,as Russia and China are doing- Peace through commerce.
      All america wants is war and looting.

    • JM says:

      China isn’t looting? They are the principal instigators of the janjoui ( spelling?) in the Sudan to ensure they get the oil. China would drill through a hospital bed to get oil. They got all the contracts for minerals in Afghanistan and imported their own workers so the Afghans got totally screwed and that’s from a 60 minutes story a couple years ago. We are totally beholden to the petrodollar and the printing press. All of are cards are in the dollar as the world reserve currency which lets us print and print. Russia and china are gobbling up real assets.

    • margsview says:

      Careful or what –who–and why will do to you what they are currently doing to me—censoring…Hold on. this is waiting to be approved by Who What Why—and then it just disappears…..

    • Comments editor says:

      ‘Hold on. this is waiting to be approved by Who What Why—and then it just disappears…..’

      …and appears.

    • margsview says:

      Come on now, naive is not the way to go here….These wars are only about corporations and strategic geopolitical control….
      Current baddie is Russia, only because the Bushes/neocons were hot-to-trot to finally clear out the leaders of many Middle Eastern countries, with established relationships with Russia—Thus the bogus Cold War fiasco, of war-thru-regime-no-invasions, in just about 17 countries, including the Ukraine.
      Well, its gets pretty vile to see millions of dead stacked up, with 15 million more, displaced playing this same b s over and over, again…
      The US has got to stop the neocons in the Pentagon, by either being re-educated or put out to pasture–
      The world is too small for our current weapons and most people (the only ones paying taxes any where close to the legal amounts) –just can’t afford to pay for everything).
      I mean globalism -in the form of wars, bank bailouts and asinine corporation now refusing to produce or pay their own business costs!–what is your definition?

      Because the 1%, corporate owners/boards, see themselves dictating and stealing everything from everyone, while taxpayers pay the real tab, for even their losses–now…

      See bilaterals.org a breakdown of all the global trade agreements and why they’re kept secret, only from the public. Check out, the ISDS investor-state dispute settlement clauses in each and every trade deal….

    • margsview says:

      I tried to answer your question..see bilaterals.org