US Must Remain In Afghanistan Not Because Of 9/11 But For Economic Future
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011
by Egberto Willies
http://egbertowillies.com
I am in agreement with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on the need for the United States to have a permanent presence in Afghanistan. I believe that the administration along with the Republicans must jointly articulate a reason based on truth as opposed to the silly reasons that have been given over the years.
Yes the Taliban in a threat but nothing near one requiring the investment in lives and resources that the United States have been investing in Afghanistan. The Taliban in its current form is solely a destabilizing pain to parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan but not a direct threat to the United States,
National pride, national security, and national survival going forward dictates that inasmuch as we have been wrong in many of the reasons for the actions we have taken over there, that we first lookout for American interest. The President must articulate a plausible message of us keeping an appropriate presence that not only reverberates with the Afghans but with the United States Citizens as well as Citizens around the world.
This Article has been viewed 990 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (9 total)I'm not sure about any foreign power having a permanent presence in any country.If the US stays in Afghanistan then you can expect to lose even more soldiers, amd risk losing completely the little support it may have now amongst the population.Do you think the US has the right to have a permanent presence anywhere they think there's a financial advantage to be there?This sort of argument is one reason why the US is mistrusted in many places in the world.I completely understand what you are saying Bill. The world though is not black and white. While I have your same feelings (afterall I am really a bonafide liberal), I am cognizant that in an imperfect world their are inconsistencies that are not easily explained. It is for this reason I stated it is incumbent upon the President to sell staying to Americans and convince the Afghans that we should stay while of course making the population profit from their trillions of dollars of natural resources. As Americans in a world where no power is innocent my bias is America first."while of course making the population profit from their trillions of dollars of natural resources"
Now THAT I'd like to see !!
Egberto Willies, I do agree with you.-United States have been investing in Afghanistan since last two decades, directly or indirectly. Earlier it was investing in Afghanistan through Taliban of Pakistan to protect Afghanistan from Communisism of Russia. Now China is investing in Pakistan to be ready to enter in Afghanistan on withdrawl of United States.Gaurav, I think you get the exact dynamics I am trying to get most of us with a liberal anti "Afghan presence" perspective to see.
I've changed my mind about US presence when I saw footage of villagers finally being able to return home because the US had pushed the Taliban back, so then I thought US presence is actually doing some good for the Afghans.I can't agree, though, on the justification of US presence for what it can take out of the country. I agree with Greg, it's colonialism and exploitation and we've all seen how well that works out in the long run. I don't think it's okay to say that because everyone's doing it, hey, the US might as well do it too.
Whether we should stay in Afghanistan for purely social or moral obligations is debatable, however I don't think that their natural resources which can be obtained almost as readily from many other sources given their extraction capabilities, even rare earth minerals, is a strong enough reason to continue to meddle in an area where our very presence is even a point of contention with it's own citizens.As far as Gaurav's assertion that China is ready and willing to exploit the void the American's leave, that is an enticing argument. Should China want Afghanistan bad enough they are in a much better position to take it if they want it, than we are to maintain it. If this is such a precious area to occupy, then why are our allies, including India, not giving us more assistance in maintaining our presence there instead of us always having to shoulder the economic burden and loss of lives?Actually I think Wikileaks was an administration blessing and it speakes to your last comment. Most countries edge us on to do the dirty work even as they publicly criticize it. We play the role not because we want to be used, but ultimately some may think it in the best interest. Sometimes it is patently wrong (Iraq, etc.) and sometimes murky (Afghanistan). Look I think my article has enough nuance to account for patritism and international morality (not faux colonialism).David Levitt, Taliban was born out of ealier investing with evil intention by Russia and thereafter by United States to grab natual resouces of Rich Afghanistan.Now same intention appear of China. Neither has ever tried to help the poor Afghanistan people.So Taliban continue to exist.Background history is big, so I intend to explain by writing an article.
Here issue -- cosequences will be disastrous on withdrawl of troops by United States ?
So for India is concern, India has never supported any war in Afghanistan by Russia and now America. India is supporting and investing lot in development of Roads, schools, health, Radio and T.V for Afghanistan people and giving scholorship to its students in India.The objective of investing by India sees peace in neighbor Afghanistan .
What I have suugested here is United Sates should not withdraw but spend on development of Afghanistan without evil intention, allow its people to live as per its culture,instead of killing its people.It is is interest of America, it will eradicate Taliban itself.Gaurav, this makes perfect sense and relates to my comment about our social or moral obligation to the region, which I did suggest was a debatable issue, and clearly as I am not intimately familiar with the history of this area could easily make a case for our continued necessity, as you have, to help Afghanistan build it's social infrastructure. If indeed India is pursuing the policy that you have described, that is a much more reasonable policy than the one the U.S. is presently pursuing which is more of a strategical advantage over the territory and it's natural resources, quite similar to our failed policy for the invasion of Iraq.
I am sorry I have to disagree with your views here. We cannot judge another civilization and take over a land only because we think they are not educated or civilized enough? Humans are humans and no matter how educated or illiterate they are, it is not our business to interfere with their culture rather respect them for who they are and allow them to live in peace instead of pounding their earth and rendering them homeless. How would you feel if China or India took over America and said there is too much problem in USA and the people don't know to live spiritually and killing themselves with drugs and guns and so the military must stay on? Sorry to be too direct, but you cannot develop your economy by ruining another civilization.
Isn't this pretty much theft?
Isn't occupyng a country to grab its resources pretty much what the US and the world condemned Saddam Hussein for back in 1990? So what you're saying is that the US is now operating at the same moral level as Saddam Hussein (complete with torturing prisoners).
I don't believe we should be at war to gain access to the natural resources a county has.
If you think Socialism is such a good idea just examine the Russian Economy. Capitalism works! The United States is the number one economy in the world. Yes, we have our problems, but so does everyone. For about $500.00 you can buy a plane ticket to any country in the world and live with others that believe the same way you do. Capitalism guarantees it's citizens things like rights; contract remediation; and property ownership--all of which you'll have to give up if you leave the United States. Socialism does not!
Sometimes people have trouble grasping an example. I'll use a smaller example so it's easy for you to understand. Remember the hippie communes back in the 60's? Everyone was expected to work and contribute equally. They also expected to have their needs meet by this arrangement. The only problem was--it didn't work. It doesn't work because of the lazy people in the world. In Soviet Union the lazy people numbered about 30%. It was enough to cause the collapse of the USSR.
You are so misinformed I do not know where to begin. It is evident you do not understand Capitalism. Capitalism isn't Free Enterprise. Afterall China is a Capitalist country. It is the fundamental conflation of Socialism and other systems mostly pushed by the bastion of misinformers (FoxNews & Right Wing Radio) that allows otherwise intelligent people like yourself support policies that will ultimately destroy the country.
I in no means support communist and non-competitive, or policies to make citizens lazy. You have allowed the Right to make you make Capitalism as currently practice a religion. Look. You are patently wrong in your beliefs. It is numerically provable. Unfortunately a bought press is good at making viewers ignorant.
You really need to read my book, understand the numbers, and the solution which is ultimately Free Enterprise. The reality is what we hve here is nohwere close. BTW, I am a successful businessman and most of my political activism is not for myself but for the country. I have very good forsight and understand the cliff we very close to.
As for leaving the country, no way. I intend to be a part of the solution for middle class America and I will be fighting for the middle class against the immorality we are in right now.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.