Will Bueché



I don't blog much 


Posted in Personal by Will on Monday, September 21st, 2009 ~ 3pm

Here’s a link to a summary of the dubious reason why we have troops, or any involvement at all, in Afghanistan:


I was curious, because as far as I could tell, Afghanistan produces nothing, and is not relevant to life in the United States at all, and had pretty much been bombed out of existence by the Soviet Union’s long occupation decades earlier. A wasteland. Which raised the question of why the heck do we care about a wasteland?

I’ll summarize what the linked info says by explaining that a long time ago, when the Soviet Union was trying to rule Afghanistan, we provided weapons to every loony rebel we could find in order to fight them off — not because we cared about Afghanistan but because doing so would help bankrupt the Soviet Union. It worked. And now, all those loons that we supported are still there, and now we’d like them to be dead, because most of them happen to be fundamental crazies who not only view the citizens of Afghanistan as their enemies — to be subjugated under tyrannical, murderous religious rules — but they also view their creators and former supporters, the United States, as their enemy too. Probably they view the entire world as their enemies, since religion breeds paranoia.

So apparently we’re there to try to get rid of the monsters we fostered, now that they’ve outlived their usefulness.

I suspect the second reason is that the arms companies want to continue being paid money by the US government, and that if Obama suddenly withdrew their cash, they’d do to him what was done to Kennedy.

But if the main reason is that we are trying to kill the loonies we created, then here’s a word to the wise: next time we meddle in some obscure country, give them weapons that we can set to self-destruct by satellite. Build-in the ability to neutralize their weapons once we are tired of them.

No Responses to 'Afghanistan'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. Ace Harmon said,

    on September 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am

    There’s also the Haliburton explanation.

    When Bush first arrived in office, there were plans for an pipeline that ran through Afghanistan, but the ruling Taliban wouldn’t allow for construction. Why it still hasn’t been built, I’m not sure, but that was supposed to be a major reason why we went in the first time.

  2. Will said,

    on October 10th, 2009 at 1:16 am

    On that point, Ace, someone else commented in a similar thread, “[some people seem] to believe that an Afghan regime friendly to the US is strategically important because it will enable the construction of oil and gas pipelines from former Soviet states to supply the West. I think the few trillion we’ll eventually have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures could have been of far greater strategic benefit if it had been spent on developing sustainable energy infrastructure right here in the USA. That course of action would probably not have been so potentially profitable for lenders and big oil, hence it was a course not embarked upon by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld regime.”

Leave a Reply