In the long history of American conflict overseas, there is no question that natural resources have played a considerable part. And if the struggle in Afghanistan has begun to seem nonsensical, perhaps this can help put it into context.
The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
Now, I am not arguing that we went into Afghanistan to exploit their natural resources. But we may very well stay there because of them. The truth is that we didn’t know that they had any natural resources beyond poppy, and this discovery is recent.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.
Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.
The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.
The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.
My first impression on learning this news is positive. Afghanistan is so poor and so decrepit and so insecure that they could never attract the foreign investment or aid needed to become functional and prosperous. But now that we know that they are sitting on untold wealth, they have a domestic source of revenue that can truly transform the country. Yet, my second impression is that this spells trouble. Afghanistan will be the next Deadwood.
They don’t have the infrastructure to set up complicated mining operations with the assistance of investment bankers and foreign capital. They have no mining industry to speak of, and no regulators. They have no idea how to protect the environment. They can learn those things fairly quickly, as Saudi Arabia did in the oil industry. But they’re starting from zero.
And we should remember that our very own Minerals Management Service is probably the most corrupt agency in our entire government. How much worse will Karzai’s agency be? And how will China and the US clash over access to these resources?
There is a lot to be concerned about, but these resources give Afghanistan a chance that no one thought they had. While this could spur more fighting among Afghans, the truth is that this wealth will remain dormant until the factions stop fighting long enough to attract the foreign investment and expertise needed to extract it.
A certain element will call this imperialism. It will involve foreign powers, corruption, kickbacks, and political maneuvering, but it could also be the one thing that can convince different Afghan factions to stop fighting each other. If they keep fighting, no one will invest.
Let Afghanistan become the indispensable source of laptop batteries. That is so much more hopeful than the source of heroin.
Gee, if anyone can bring peace, prosperity, and jeffersonian democracy to Afghanistan, it’s the mineral-extraction lobby. Just ask Nigeria or Congo.
Or Iraq
What a joke. We’re never leaving now.
Once upon a time…
The benefits of imperialism. And now Afghanistan is a great candidate for economic imperialism, which is VERY hopeful.
Who will be first to move on it, and who will come out the winner?
US – We’re out of there at the first opportunity. Like Vietnam, we might be back after 20 years.
European Union – NATO countries will have baggage but not others
Russia – Has to deal with a lot of baggage.
Iran – Certainly a way to a coastal port for shipment.
China – Has transportation and ethnic issues
Japan – Not likely
Korea – Only if they can figure a way to transport it
Australia – Mining expertise
South Africa – Mining expertise
Pakistan
India
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan – Every one more likely to be a candidate for economic imperialism than an imperialist themselves.
We are rapidly approaching a post-American global geopolitical environment. I would not assume that the US will be able to establish the infrastructure to exploit these resources.
you think we’re leaving after a discovery like this?with the potential to enrich china, iran, or any of the other neighbors?
fact fucking chance my friend, fat fucking chance.
Exhausted economy, inability to tax, staggering deficit.
We are Britain in 1946, without the rubble. The American Century is over. The only question is what comes next.
If the US makes the mistake of continuing this war because of the mineral deposits, by 2016 we will look like the Soviet Union circa 1995.
These consequences make it clear that some other nation, maybe even Afghanistan itself, will benefit from the decade of investment that it will take to bring these resources online. Multinational corporations will be looking directly to those countries and not using the US as the powerful intermediary.
Agreed. This is the era of China and India. Europe and America’s turns are over.
I’m sure you’ll be dead by 2050 (sorry, buddy, haha), but the people who live to see that year (if any of us do) will see India and China’s dominance full-force.
Of course, I don’t think they will have the same “chance” that we did. By then I suspect rather than full-fledged dominance, we’ll see other nations having a more even hand.
not necessarily, it depends what happens with regional control of resources (different situation in each region of course). BP is a wake-up call. let’s not fool ourselves. ok, maybe we arent’ Lake Victoria (yet) but usa, we, do not have regional control of our resources.
I’ll be 80, homeless, and eating catfood in 2050, like the rest of us.
But i have no doubt we’ll make the same mistake at the USSR and try to stay in Afghanistan. you can see that train coming a mile away.
i don’t know why booman thinks discovery of minerals in Afghanistan is “hopeful”. All such discovery has caused in other developing nations is misery for the people and oligarchy for the powerful. Nigeria is NOT a hopeful place. Zimbabwe, not hopeful. Iraq, not hopeful. Iran, not hopeful (though more hopeful than during the period when we propped up the Shah, to get access to all the oil).
damn funny definition of “hopeful” if you ask me.
India, on the other hand, was very hopeful. That country was shit before multinationals exploited the resources there.
It’s either nationalization, or leave the multinationals to get some skin in the game and invest there. Afghanistan has neither the resources, infrastructure, tools or capital to access their wealth; the corporations do.
Even if they did, nationalization over such industries has been proven to be an abysmal failure. It might not be fair, but it can provide the jumpstart they need for an actual economy that they once had.
This is assuming they can get some stability, which so far has yet to be seen.
I personally share BooMan’s optimism.
Yep. Unless I make it well past 100.
I’m not sure what China’s dominance or India’s dominance means. It’s going to be a different political dynamic.
Paul Starobin in After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age identifies six possibilities: hard chaos (global anarchy), soft chaos (neo-feudalism), regional dominance, Chinese dominance, world government, and multipolar globalism. All have their advantages and drawbacks. None include US dominance.
what are these pictures?
Afghans, 1960 or thereabouts. Probably lifted from Life magazine. Just take a short walk down the road and see how the other half lives. I was in Afghanistan in 1970 and missed these people.
well, the same sequence could be posted re: Detroit. I think rushing in with the usa bashing on this thread is missing the contemporary issue (it’s so yesterday, as Carly F might say). I read the 2010 situation more as a problem of regional control and benefits vs. global corporate exploitation. that’s my reading of what we’re up against with BP and the Gulf Coast – same as what global corporations have done to Ecuador and Nigeria. Bolivia is facing the same uncertainty as Afghanistan, but from more strength and trying to position themselves for regional control and benefit. will be interesting to see how Bolivia does on that.
This was Afghanistan before the Soviets invaded, and before the coups that plagued the country.
Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan can be a thriving place of economic and social culture, and it doesn’t have to be bombed into submission to get there.
Kabul University was one of the greatest learning centers in the entire world, which is where the first two pictures were taken.
Of course, a lot of this was due to European influence and economic aid, but I see no reason why it can’t return to the way it was during the 1960’s, especially with the discovery of these resources. They used to have manufacturing and textile industries that were thriving, with a rapidly growing economy:
Women were also “freer” (not to mention the public transportation:
It can be governable. It can thrive. I don’t see it happening under Karzai’s corruptness, though. They’ve always had a problem and a history with the assassination of their leaders as well.
.
Once upon a time in Afghanistan …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
“…we may very well stay there because of [the rich mineral deposits]“
Ah yes, this IS hopeful! Afghanistan now has something worth exploiting at the expense of the population. Now instead of blowing them to smithereens, arbitrarily detaining and torturing them for political reasons, the U.S. will have real, economic reasons. Lucky Afghans!
“While this could spur more fighting among Afghans…“
Yeah, fighting among Afghans is the worst-case scenario kind of like fighting among Iraqis was their biggest problem until the western imperial powers came along and straightened everybody out and convinced them to make peace with each other so Iraqis could really benefit from their natural resources – NOT!
Now there is a rational, cogent reason to continue the war in Afghanistan for at least another ten years, let so many Afghans and USA-ians die for mineral wealth, and pour several more trillion bucks into the hands of Karzai, his friends and multinationals—only to have China walk away with the ‘prizes’. Have the USA-ians always been so thick-headed?
Yep, and “progressive” USA-ians can sometimes be among the thickest-headed, and most delusional USA-ians ever.
yes.
on how Obama will turn this into another opportunity to poke progressives in the eye
.
Minerals are well documented for decades, why do we know so little of the Afghan culture and Taliban?
(USGS 2008) – The Government signed a contract with Metallurgical Group Corp. (MGC) of China for extraction of copper at the Aynak deposit in the Province of Logar in November 2007. MGC would invest $2.8 billion in the mine, which was estimated to have a resource of more than 12 Mt of contained copper. The mine was leased to MGC for 30 years and MGC would pay $400 million per year in tax to the Government as compensation (Pak Tribune, The, 2008).
An unnamed Afghan private company won the bidding to mine placer gold in the Province of Takhar and planned to invest $40 million for extraction of gold. The project would employ more than 4,000 people in the region. The level of gold production was not specified but the Government would receive 50% of the income from the extracted gold (Pak Tribune, The, 2008).
Afghanistan is known to have a total of 49 recorded occurrences of rare metals found in pegmatitic rocks. Beryllium mineralization in pegmatites was identified in the Provinces of Laghman and Nangarhar and was related to either Oligocene or Early Cretaceous magmatism in metasediments. The Darrahe-Pech deposit in Nangarhar was estimated to have a resource of 12,000 t of beryl (containing 1,480 t of beryllium oxide). Lithium mineralization in pegmatites is found in the Provinces of Badakhshan and Oruzgan in addition to the Provinces of Laghman and Nangarhar. The spodumene-albite pegmatite in the Parun prospect in Nangarhar Province has a grade of 1.5% lithium oxide whereas the pegmatite dykes in the Taghawkor prospect in Oruzgan Province have a grade of between 1.7% and 2.8% lithium oxide. Tantalum and niobium mineralization is found in the Provinces of Badakhshan and Parvan. The prospect with the most potential was Nilaw in Laghman Province (Afghanistan Geological Survey, 2007).
Industrial Minerals
Afghanistan’s limestone resources occur in the Provinces of Badakhshan (the Jamarchi-Bolo deposit), Baghlan (the Pul-i-Khumri deposit), Bamyan, and Herat (the Benosh-Darrah, the Darra-i-Chartagh, and the Rod-i-Sanjur deposits). The Sabz quarry in Badakhshan worked on a Lower Carboniferous limestone resource, which was estimated to be 1,300 Mt (Industrial Minerals, 2008). The country’s cement plants were outdated and no investment in the industry had been made since the 1970s. Cement output was reported to be 16,000 t, and cement consumption was reported to be 2.5 Mt in 2005 (the latest year for which data were available). In the same year, Afghanistan imported 1.8 Mt of cement from Pakistan, 400,000 t from Iran, and the remaining 300,000 t from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Cement was produced by the only operating Ghuri cement plant at Pul-i-Khumri in the Province of Baghlan.
Ministry of Mines: Afghanistan Geological Survey
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I suspect the USGS knows of this. It’s the US media that is continually discovering the rest of the world.
“Oh, there’s an Afghanistan. Who knew?” “There are people there? Who knew?” “They have a large resource essential to batteries for alternative energy? Who knew?” “And now on to the news from Hollywood.”
And what the media know, ordinary Americans in general know less because of the dumbing down of the culture in the name of preserving Western and traditional values.
.
“Additionally, use of this data is broadly applicable in the assessment of water resources and natural hazards, the inventory and planning of civil infrastructure and agricultural resources, and the construction of detailed maps.”
Aeromagnetic Data
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
You left out something from this:
They also don’t have a GOVERNMENT.
Try to keep the Russians at bay as well. Look at how petro dollars have enriched and corrupted that country. This is right up their alley.
Came for the pipeline, stayed for the lithium.
Calm down, guys, Australia is the country doing the global mining exploitation. (Rupert Murdoch, anyone?)
Sigh…
We simply can’t catch a break.
Afghanistan was a pit of hell even before this announcement.
Now, we’ll never get out of there.
Why couldn’t it have been any other country over there, including Iran.
The problem with it being Afghanistan, is that Afghanistan has never been a country.
It’s a land mass with tribes on it.
It doesn’t have an educated class, by that I mean a substantially sized educated class, so, if there was any `democracy’ that was established there, they could run things.
It is not an Iran, which not only has a highly educated populace within the walls of Iran at this moment, but also has a highly educated exile populace around the world. Iran, and Iraq, not only have an educated class, but they also have a solid mercantile class, folks that know have been entrepreneurs and bankers for centuries.
Afghanistan is a land mass with tribes on it. An uneducated populace, which means trouble.
Here they come – the multi-nationals, which is all they need. Reading this story just made my stomach drop, and think about a scene from the movie-Syriana: they would show these meetings of the ` Free Iran’ Committee, here and there, and ya know, there wasn’t a person in those meetings that looked like they could trace their ancestry to Iran.
If we went into IRAQ for OIL (the contracts for which American companies – NEVER GOT), then, let’s not be shocked, if we can’t LEAVE Afghanistan anytime soon.
Just the thoughts of a cynic this morning.
Talk about not catching a break. Whether the US pursues the illusion of exploiting these resources, US companies will not get the contracts in Afghanistan either. There are just too many sophisticated mining companies outside the US.
Sorta puts the policy choice in perspective, doesn’t it?
It seems to me like a rather self-centered response.
Not really. The deficit peacocks are always doing ROI calculations on domestic policy. In this case, the actual return on funds expended has actually weakened the US, made it unlikely that US aid can actually help Afghanistan develop these resources for the Afghan people, and made it more likely that taxpayer, who are quite willing to pay for war, are unlikely to want to pay for such US aid.
It wasn’t always and 100% the case, but the past generation has seen an American culture in which the virtues of self-centeredness and selfishness have been glorified.
My objection to the ongoing war in Afghanistan is based on my estimation that we cannot create a functioning economy and government there.
If you produce nothing of value, then all the money invested is wasted. But, in the longer term, if Afghanistan can get a functioning economy and government funded through their own natural resources, that will be a positive thing for them.
America’s role in that is unknowable at this point, and I don’t advocate continuing a counterinsurgency plan that is clearly not working so that we can be on the ground near minerals that we can’t get out of the ground.
But the fact that the minerals exist could form the basis for Afghans to put their weapons aside for the first time in thirty years and that is my basis for hope.
So, if YOU could create a functioning economy and government there (imposed and created by YOU, of course, because you know best) you’d be happy to continue bombing, killing, destroying, imprisoning, torturing, and forcing your will on people in a foreign land because then it would be worth it?
American hubris is alive and well in the American “progressive”.
this is doubly-deranged.
“My objection to the ongoing war in Afghanistan is based on my estimation that we cannot create a functioning economy and government there.“
If that really is your objection to the war, then it is logical to conclude that if the reason for that objection were removed, and you COULD create a functioning economy and government there, then you would cease to object to the war.
that’s correct.
I never said any different. In six years I never said anything contrary to that about Afghanistan.
We went in there and removed the terrible government that ruled most of the country and we tried to stand up another one. If we could do that, I’d support it. But we can’t, so I don’t.
Then my comment was accurate. If you could create a functioning economy and government there you’d be happy to continue bombing, killing, destroying, imprisoning, torturing, and forcing your will on people in a foreign land because then it would be worth it.
That bombing and killing are not succeeding in creating a stable government and are still considered necessary nine years after the last government was removed from power is the proof for me that the policy cannot succeed.
If the Taliban had been removed from power and been replaced by a government that could, with significant assistance, provide security and attract significant aid and investment, then it would be morally acceptable to me to make an ongoing commitment to that government and to occasionally help them in their effort to maintain order (including directly and indirectly killing some people). That is not the situation we face. Afghanistan does not have the resources it needs to provide security or services or to attract significant foreign investment. We cannot fix the situation, and we cannot make people accept a government that is weak, corrupt, and incapable of protecting them or providing for their needs.
There is no alternative government waiting in the wings that will do better with less help. There is no hope for Afghanistan. However, the fact that they do have substantial untapped wealth in the source of lithium, lead, and copper means that they might in the future be able to raise sufficient revenues to pay for a national police force (maybe even one that is paid well enough that it doesn’t have to engage in corruption to put food on the table).
If Afghanistan is going to realize its potential, it is going to first have to provide enough calm and stability that outside investors will want to build mines. It’s really up the tribal leaders to get together and realize what instability is really costing them and their country. I think they may be capable of that, at least in certain areas of the country. So, I find the discovery of these national assets to be a hopeful sign that by no means assures a stop to fighting nor that would be utilized without costs, including environmental costs.
And I don’t doubt that Afghanistan would struggle with all the same issues that [Bolivia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bl.html%5D faces in dealing with foreign energy companies and figuring out the right mix to assure the people benefit, the environment is protected, and that their rich resources don’t become more a curse than a blessing.
And it is, of course, up to you – aka – the United States – to make sure that Afghanistan realizes its potential, as you define it, even if it means bombing, killing, destroying, etc. in order to impose on it the “right” government (by your standards, of course).
I suggest that it is exactly this kind of hubris on the part of the west (to including the Soviets) that has made it impossible for countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to independently evolve and develop forms of government and economies that are suitable for them, and that will allow them to “be all that they can be”.
A slight tangent, but I’m curious as to how you view organizations like the Peace Corps, and books like Three Cups of Tea.
The Peace Corps may not be perfect, but to the best of my knowledge it does not involve itself in “regime change” at all, does not try to impose a particular political system or a particular set of “leaders” on other people, and does not at any time use military violence, or violence of any sort to “help” people in developing countries to “be all that they can be” (in that they will serve its own interests better, of course). In fact, from what I understand the Peace Corps does not impose anything at all on anyone.
If, as I understand it, the Peace Corps program is based on the “teach a man to fish” principle, I am for it. To the extent that its programs are about helping people to help themselves while respecting them, and their independence as adult human beings (as opposed to infantilizing them as the U.S. government tends to do), and to the extent that it is about equipping people to continue to independently evolve ways to improve their own circumstances over the long term, I think it’s a good thing.
As for the book Three Cups of Tea, I have not read it, but from what I have heard, it sounds as if the fellow had the right idea for the most part. My sense is that he listened to the people, respected what THEY said they needed, and helped them to create it. That is the difference between helping people and what the U.S. empire does with its various programs of “liberation” by coercion.
I am all for helping people. Governments do not spend hundreds, or even tens of billions of dollars to send their militaries into countries, bomb, imprison, and torture them into submission, impose the U.S. choice of political and economic systems on them, and choose their leaders for them in order to help them. But I am sure you know that as well as I do.
PS In case it was not clear from what I said, I am opposed to programs that tell people what they need, how they should live, how to govern themselves, and/or who should govern them. I am in favour of programs that ask people what they need, what THEY want to change, what they do NOT want to change, and work with them on that basis.
One of the things I have said from the beginning about Americans in Iraq is that they are completely welcome to come to Iraq as independent individuals or groups with their skills and knowledge and expertise, or just their willingness, and to work under the direction of Iraqis to help rebuild the country.
Mmmk, I was just wondering because I know some people who those organizations like the Peace Corps as “Westerners knowing best” in the sense that they’re doing things that “according to the West,” they couldn’t figure out for themselves.
Kind of like a White Man’s Burden type deal. Although most people I know who use that term are Libertarians and Isolationists.
Also, I guess this is why I’m called a hater of America so often. In truth, I hate all governments, and you’d be hard pressed to find me defending any government other than Scandinavia, and maybe Canada. Not like they’re exempt from their pasts of barbarism, but in contemporary society they’re the only ones worth defending, if any are worth defending at all.
But, sometimes national self-interest intersects these areas, and if our country was serious about stability and peace (which can be, in terms of national self-interest, worth more than any exploitation), it would go the route that you propose.
If the U.S. really saw well-being of the population and stability as coinciding with its national interest, then I suppose the U.S. could reduce its military by 90% or so, and replace it with a “Three Cups of Tea”-like effort (which would be EVER so much less expensive, and leave tons of money to spend on – you know, Americans!), though I tend to think that these things are far better if conducted by groups that are not beholden to, let alone part of a government (I, too, am no fan of governments in general). For one thing, aid of any kind provided by a powerful foreign government always comes with a price, and the price is usually subservience to the foreign power.
Unfortunately, what the U.S. generally sees as being most in its national interest is dominance and control, and that tends to require coercion of the most ghastly – and extremely expensive – sort.
I don’t actually care who decides these matters.
What I personally would like is for Afghanistan to be at least the country it was before 1973, but with some of the modern benefits that most nations have accrued since then. For that to happen, they need massive infusions of cash that is invested in making more cash.
The reason I use the example of Saudi Arabia is because Afghanistan has been reduced to a level not unlike what pre-oil Arabia looked like. To get the kind of investment needed to transform into a country where tribal feuding ceases and a national government can take root, they are going to need massive investment from outside powers. If they don’t want that investment, they shouldn’t be forced to accept it. If they don’t put down their guns, they won’t get it even if they do want it.
I could care less whether the investment comes from Hong Kong, Dubai, London, New York, or Sydney. It’d probably be best if it came from all of those places.
How you turn this into me supporting bombing and killing people is a little mysterious. It seems to me that you’d prefer it if Afghanistan were left alone, free of outside interest of any kind, including investment. They actually tried that in the 1990’s and it was a disaster. To be more accurate, Afghanistan was left alone by everybody but Pakistan’s ISI and a bunch or bored Arabs who had nothing better to do than play with guns and explosives and try to out-pious each other in their militancy and radicalism.
And no one ever got killed there. It was nirvana.
“I don’t actually care who decides these matters.“
Well, I do. People have to decide these kinds of matters for themselves and not be coerced into what those with power want them to have and be.
“How you turn this into me supporting bombing and killing people is a little mysterious.“
Come on, BooMan. You yourself have said repeatedly that you would support the war if it would “work” – that is, yield the results you want. War is by definition military violence. It is bombing and killing people and destroying things, and imprisoning and torturing people who oppose the presence of those who are there bombing and killing people and destroying things. If you would support the war under any circumstances, then you support bombing and killing people and destroying things. It is simple linear logic.
This is the key to your failure to understand my position.
When I say that the I would support the American effort to assist Afghanistan is setting up a national government even if that included a degree of violence on our part to assist them in maintaining order, I do not mean that I support nine years of failed effort that devolves into a massive counterinsurgency effort.
The problem isn’t that Karzai was approved by the Americans. I support self-determination, but it’s application in the context of post-Taliban Afghanistan was not tenable. They did have elections to solidify Karzai as a true representative of the people.
That first election was flawed, naturally, but it was much better than the one that followed in 2009. The problem is that Karzai was unable to establish a national government, and the US became mired in a protracted counterinsurgency campaign.
Rather than assisting a central government against a few diehards, this became a continuation of a decades-old civil war, with the US siding with an increasingly corrupt central power.
Some people predicted this is what would happen and wisely advised against getting mired down in Afghanistan in the first place. But the distinction for me is that it would be one thing to help Afghanistan develop institutions so that it can function as a nation-state with security and effective ministries and a growing economy, but quite another to become a party to a high-grade civil war. You put this as I would support the ‘war’ if it was working. A better way of understanding it is that I would support the effort if it wasn’t so much a ‘war’ as help with some fairly low-level security problems.
The fact that it is still a war after nine years proves that we haven’t been at all successful in helping the government become a true government.
Another way of putting this is that it would morally laudable to help Afghanistan put an end to Taliban rule and end a civil war, and to give them substantial aid and assistance. And if some people got killed in that process it would be unfortunate but in the service of peace and prosperity. But if you don’t end the civil war and don’t bring prosperity, then you shouldn’t keep trying beyond the point where it is obvious that you have failed.
I know this involves a rather complicated moral calculation. We might look as post-war Japan as an example. If we had attempted to occupy and govern Japan and wound up finding the place embroiled in a civil war and armed resistance to our occupation, there would have been a point at which we would have had to decide that we would not be successful in helping Japan set up a government and start developing economically. Staying there and killing people on one side of a civil war would not have been in our interests and would not have helped Japan.
However, if you look at Japan today, I think you can argue that our efforts there were mutually beneficial to the US and Japan, and therefore to the region and the world.
It’s not a perfect analogy because Afghanistan did not attack us in the same clear way that Japan did. I would have focused on the Arab fighters in Afghanistan and their camps, recruiting, financing, etc., rather than getting involved in a massive nation-building operation. But my moral problem with our effort in Afghanistan is not that we made the effort, but that we can’t justify continued investment and violence in the face of clear evidence that it isn’t benefitting anyone.
Or, in other words, I’d support the war there if it wasn’t a war.
“US aid can actually help Afghanistan develop these resources for the Afghan people“
When has the U.S. provided aid for a foreign country to develop valuable resources for the people of that country?
That’s altogether another issue.
But if memory serves, the closest the US came to that position was the Marshall Plan.
How is it another issue? If the U.S. has no history of providing aid for countries to develop resources for the benefit of their people, then that is predictive of what we can expect from the U.S. in regard to Afghanistan’s mineral resources, no?
As for the Marshall Plan, to my knowledge that aid was not provided to allow countries to develop their natural resources for the benefit of their people.
So what you’re saying is it’s more important that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and countless American lives in the service of Afghanistan’s people, when we have crumbling infrastructure, 10%+ unemployment at home, a broken health care system that’s only begun to be fixed, and a dead job market?
OK, then.
No, I am saying that much of the response to this article on the left has been to focus exclusively on what it means for America and not what it could mean for Afghanistan.
And you are talking about dropping bombs on Afghans, killing, imprisoning, and torturing them, deciding for them who is a good Afghan and who is a bad Afghan, and forcing your will on Afghans as an “investment” that might turn out to be “worth it” now that they have discovered those mineral deposits you can develop for them – or, to put it more nicely, to “help” them develop. Sounds like you are focused on what’s in it for you as well, albeit in a different way.
that’s a deranged comment.
“If you produce nothing of value, then all the money invested is wasted.”
“…I don’t advocate continuing a counterinsurgency plan that is clearly not working so that we can be on the ground near minerals that we can’t get out of the ground.
“
Granted, perhaps I am inferring something you did not intend, but it appears you would be OK with continuing the “counterinsurgency plan” – aka, bombing, killing, destroying, imprisoning, torturing, forcing your will – if it would 1) work, 2) allow you to get the minerals out of the ground. If that is not what you intended to imply, then I am sorry for the incorrect inference, and I would appreciate clarification.