I ask because combat deaths (US and coalition) have passed 1900. We have spent 100’s of $ billions, and 9 years trying to :
No. Even if the goals you stated were the real reason for the war, it still would not be worth it. This war, and Iraq are wars of aggression for control of the natural resources of the middle east, and to feed the milltary-industrial complex.
This was all spelled out in the PNAC paper RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Minor quibble, we’ve actually only spent a little over two years trying to do those things. Once Bush got into Iraq, he left Afghanistan to hang for six years.
That inattention has turned Afghanistan into a total balls up for us. We’re not going to end up with a shining citadel of democracy in central asia now, so we should find a way to leave without producing an instant terrorist motherland.
War is never “worth it”. The cost is always too high.
The only way to defeat a determined enemy is to find out what they care for and show you can obliterate it, should you choose, and the reason you have not already, is out of common decency. If they have nothing they care for that much, you are fucked.
No, even putting aside that our current objectives are attainable at any cost. It ain’t the Graveyard of Empires for nuttin’.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to kill everyone who sells weapons to the Taliban?
Besides the mineral resources that were discovered a few years ago and would take decades, if not longer, to be extracted under even peaceful circumstances, what natural resources did the US intend to take/seize/acquire in Afghanistan in 2001?
And given that the US portion of the foreign investment in Iraq (and its oil fields) is only a tiny, tiny portion - especially when compared to China’s - what natural resources of Iraq’s has/is/will the US plundered/plundering/plunder?
In both of these cases, the US is losing money, not directly acquiring resources.
I suppose Israel is a sound investment then?
Bit harsh to blame Bush… after all, according to the leader of the Republicans the Afghan War is *Obama’s *war, or at least “a war of Obama’s choosing”.
Nope, never was. I reluctantly supported strikes following 9/11, including limited boots-on-ground. But never saw any merit in full scale invasion and attempted nation building there.
At this point, the best we can do is cut our losses and bring everyone home as quickly as possile, while maintaining the capability to wreak vengeance from a distance upon anyone who acts against us.
I view the Afghan war as an oil war because the reason Osama Bin Laden went Death to America in the first place is that he was denied the opportunity to protect the Saudis from Saddam Hussein in favor of the Americans, who wanted to protect their oil interests there. So, infidels in holy land + Bin Laden = 9/11.
Yes, if the alternative is for Afghanistan to remain a safe training base for extremists and terrorists.
That doesn’t mean the war has been waged in a particularly efficient way, though.
None, but then we were never serious about Afghanistan; it was just a stepping stone to Iraq, and after Iraq the rest of the Middle East. Except that we didn’t get past Iraq, fortunately it turned into a disaster.
The term you are looking for is “failure”. We tried, we failed. Our free market fanaticism led to a quagmire and disaster for the Iraqis, not the cheap war and the economic miracle they were supposed to. And the Iraqis proved to be intractable, instead of falling down and worshiping us the way the neocons expected. Even the government we propped up wasn’t suicidal enough to hand us the majority of the oil profits the way we wanted, and the Iraqi resistance made a point of destroying the oil extraction infrastructure to keep us from looting their oil like we intended.
US troops in Saudi Arabia was only one of three grievances that Bin Laden publicly stated before 9/11, with the situation in pre-2003 Iraq (it is unclear if he is referring to the results of the Gulf War itself or the decade of UN sanctions afterwards) and support for Israel being the other two.
It is deceptively simplistic to call Afghanistan an “oil war.”
I thought Afghanistan was an ideological war? Aren’t we meant to be convincing them that the West is the Best, then? Or better still, that in absolute respects, there is no fucking East and West, we’re all stuck on this ride together, and if they want to fart throughout the journey, they can take a fucking window seat.
Yes. The Afghans have been a boil on the butt of civilization for centuries. They have grown risk robbing and selling drugs to others. They are a public menace on a global scale.
Do you remember the Taliban throwing acid in the face of women? Blowing up Buddhas? Allowing terrorist groups to make their plans? Do you want to return Afghani women to their fate? I do not.
Is it hard? Sure, but the job will only be harder in the future. We owe it to our children to solve this problem now.
I still can’t understand how leaving Iraq + Afghanistan = creating more terrorism. Surely, those people want the U.S. out of their country. So how does giving them what they want (we leave) cause them to, what is it again, follow us home or something?
I don’t get it.
If the US did not go into Afghanistan looking to plunder its natural resources, then absolutes about US foreign policy can no longer be used, such as the US is only interested in other countries for their natural resources or the US only cares about natural resources.
There is no question that Iraq has been a disastrous war, mainly for Iraqi civilians, but also for the US and its standing abroad. It’s a bit too early to say whether the US’s extremely revised war aims of building a semi-stable Iraqi state are a “failure” though, even in the somewhat chaotic Iraqi political situation. It’s still a lot better now than it was even back in 2005 when a full-blown civil war seemed imminent that threatened to draw in the surrounding Middle East into open proxy warfare with Iran and its sponsored Shiite militias. All that remains to be seen is whether things will revert back to the brink after the US withdrawal in 2011.
There was no native Iraqi government until the Coalition Provisional Authority handed sovereignty back over to the Iraqis in 2004. Also, while the insurgency was beginning to build up, it did not have the capabilities and size in 2004 that it did in 2005 or 2006. So, if the US intended on “looting” Iraq’s oil resources, why didn’t they just do it in late 2003 or 2004 when there was no sovereign government or full-blown insurgency to challenge or hinder it?
Wars of aggression are never worth it. A case could be made that Afghanistan was a valid response to 9/11 and we might have been able to accomplish something useful there if we hadn’t decided that Iraq would be fun to invade too.
At this point, 9 years in, it would be nice if our leaders could, at the very least, make a bold statement as to what they hope to accomplish there. Then all of us voters could assess whether we think the effort is worthwhile. If the statement is that we will stay until Afghanistan is a stable democracy, even if it takes 50 years (picture South Korea), then I might even be supportive.