The Big Game of Central Asia and Afghanistan

[Terxpahseyton]

SiLL, be serious. Afghanistan is not even stable enough to build a pipepline. The Taliban would obviously bomb it.

Last time I heard it is the aim of the NATO forces to achieve this stability.

The Pipelines from Central Asia will go through Russia towards Europe or through the Caucasus, through Turkey to Europe. Afghanistan can easily be bypassed.

Just that this has little to do with a pipeline for Europe from Central Asia.

Furthermore, if you think the West is willing to waste billion on Central Asian peasants to ensure pipelines go through mountainous Afghanistan...you've got to be more insane than Kaiser Wilhelm II...or even Hitler.

Okay, once again... It is not just about this pipeline! By far not!
Read the freaking article.
And I see. One has to be an insane mass-murder to question the honorable intentions of the great American protectors of the Western civilization.
Dude, what really kills me about that is to see how effective the "official version" got entrenched.

The war in Afghanistan is being waged to ensure Islamic militants don't use it to plan attacks on the West (which I think won't work because Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan can easily be used as bases to plan attacks against Western Civilization).

Yea, yeah.. we know the story. Thanks.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Again: Read the article. As I see it you rush into this thread, make some rude comment based on a false premise and now ask me to summarize a specific aspect of the article.
I find this unacceptable.

I regularly read der Spiegel [english section] and read the translation in full. We already had all these arguments way back in 2002-03 and they haven't got any better since then. The article even contradicts its own analysis by observing that the Chinese and Russians have purchased multi-billion dollar assets in the country - so much for monopolistic imperialism

It's well known that many of our NATO allies are operating under various caveats to avoid shouldering risks.

To avoid any upset I won't say anything more about the record of the German combat forces in Afghanistan - which speaks for itself anyway.

Do you want to know the real reason we invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer: The stupidity and vane delusions of the governments who ran those countries, followed by the stupidity of some of the locals who started pointless insurgencies against us when we only wanted to withdraw.

 

[Mansa Musa]

In response to the nonsense I just heard from above, an American leftist online magazine will counter your claim. Read this article and educate yourself:

http://www.slate.com/id/2059487
Pipe Dreams
The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
By Seth Stevenson

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Do you want to know the real reason we invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer: The stupidity and vane delusions of the governments who ran those countries, followed by the stupidity of some of the locals who started pointless insurgencies against us when we only wanted to withdraw.

Well, yes, and no.

The Iraq War's origins are so multifarious and controversial that it's likely we will never learn the real reasons for it.

The Afghanistan War is infinitely more obvious: The US needed credibility after it had been attacked. Any major power that has been attacked in a serious or dramatic way (9/11 was the latter but not the former) needs to respond quickly and decisively if it is to keep its reputation as a power; otherwise, it starts to look weak and might lose its ability to advance and protect its interests elsewhere.

I dispute, however, the belief that the insurgencies are pointless. Insurgencies can and do make powers up and leave if things get hopeless enough. That would be a major blow to US credibility in each case. Both Iraqi and Afghan insurgents were hoping for a repeat of Vietnam. In each case, the United States has since made advances in counter-insurgency strategy since the 70s, and as a result, they're finding it more difficult than the VC and NVA did.

In response to the nonsense I just heard from above, an American leftist online magazine will counter your claim. Read this article and educate yourself:

http://www.slate.com/id/2059487
Pipe Dreams
The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
By Seth Stevenson

More or less what I was saying. The oil and gas are a nice side benefit, but they're not the initial reason we went into Afghanistan. However, since then, Afghanistan has become a significant space on the game board of the wider energy game in Central Asia, which adds one more reason to stay and to conduct the war in the way that we are doing.

The geostratgic situation in Central Asia has changed dramatically in the last nine years, and not entirely because of NATO's presence there. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan is, if anything, a happy accident for the West: it gave them an in to the Central Asian game that everyone saw coming but expected China (trying to get the oil and gas to their growing industry) and Russia (trying to encourage the Central Asian governments to reduce production and channel their distribution through Russia) to be the only serious players in. Instead, we now have a three-player game, which the Europeans would do well to stay involved in.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In response to the nonsense I just heard from above, an American leftist online magazine will counter your claim. Read this article and educate yourself:

http://www.slate.com/id/2059487
Pipe Dreams
The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
By Seth Stevenson

Though from my first impression you remain a deluded bone head, you got a point on the pipeline. The article itself you posted wasn't of much use, but a there linked BBC-article was. I accept that it seems that the creation of a specific pipeline can not be viewed as one of the more significant underlying causes of the Afghanistan war.
However, you are still unable or unwilling to address the whole geopolitical scope of the matter and prefer to hack on one single point instead. Lockesdonkey offered additional insights which may help you to understand it.

I regularly read der Spiegel [english section] and read the translation in full.

That makes me wonder about your statements.

We already had all these arguments way back in 2002-03 and they haven't got any better since then.

Controversial topics like that rarely offer a pleasant experience.

The article even contradicts its own analysis by observing that the Chinese and Russians have purchased multi-billion dollar assets in the country - so much for monopolistic imperialism

It does absolutely not, as it stated right away that many global player were involved. Nor claimed the article that the USA stood any chance in achieving their imperialistic goal in an ideal way. Nor did it use the word "monopolistic imperialism" nor "imperialism" nor "monopolistic" nor a word being a synonym for that.

It's well known that many of our NATO allies are operating under various caveats to avoid shouldering risks.

To avoid any upset I won't say anything more about the record of the German combat forces in Afghanistan - which speaks for itself anyway.

Well for the record too: I acknowledge the fact that the German forces are doing a poor fighting job, which has several reasons and could fill a thread itself. I personally don't feel upset by someone pointing that out. What upsets me is if the conclusion is that other forces would hence have to defend our freedom as I don't see our freedom at stake.

Do you want to know the real reason we invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer: The stupidity and vane delusions of the governments who ran those countries, followed by the stupidity of some of the locals who started pointless insurgencies against us when we only wanted to withdraw.

That seems very unfair. Those pointless insurgencies seem to achieve their aim of being allowed to keep a share of the power in Afghanistan. So they are quit successful after all.
Also, what exact vane delusions are you referring to? I really don't know.

 

[warpus]

Islamic terrorists have attacked the UK and Spain.

You think Germany has no potential to suffer a terrorist attack?

Sure, but how does that threaten the freedoms that Germans enjoy, as was initially theorized by Miss Ayn?

Ayn, maybe you'd like to comment on this?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, yes, and no.

The Iraq War's origins are so multifarious and controversial that it's likely we will never learn the real reasons for it.

The Afghanistan War is infinitely more obvious: The US needed credibility after it had been attacked. Any major power that has been attacked in a serious or dramatic way (9/11 was the latter but not the former) needs to respond quickly and decisively if it is to keep its reputation as a power; otherwise, it starts to look weak and might lose its ability to advance and protect its interests elsewhere.

Credibility?

Are you sure it wasn't because 2000 people were killed by attacks set off by an organization operating out of Afghanistan?

And the need to destroy that organization so it doesn't happen again?

Sure, but how does that threaten the freedoms that Germans enjoy, as was initially theorized by Miss Ayn?

Ayn, maybe you'd like to comment on this?

Well, tightened security usually does mean less freedoms.

 

[Ayn Rand]

@warpus -

There are certain goods [such as oil, but any others also] that necessity compels us to acquire, and in order to acquire access to the trade and markets of the World, a certain amount of force is required. Some countries only tolerate us through fear, while others that now negotiate freely with us would dictate to us the moment we became weak.

We would be driven out of our markets and off our raw material base if we did not exert, continuously, our influence throughout the strategic regions of the World. In order to exert our influence, we must be prepared, militarily, for more or less uninterrupted war, at some point or other constantly.

The Americans acquire these goods more or less on behalf of the West. They also carry out a fundamental police role across the greater part of the World. Under the protection of this umbrella, Germany has been protected and free - but has grown soft and forgotten the hardships and responsibilities that reality brings.

If America were driven by force out of afghanistan and Iraq, then although the effects may not be immediate, the long-term consequences to the security and freedom of the West would be profound. Just look at the Gulf war or the Arab oil embargo, when rival States tried to deprive us of our means of survival and to drive us into submission to them.

Our liberty is built on our realistic understanding of the fact that we do not live in a political vacuum, and that we must be prepared to engage hostile, irrational, tyrannical and reactionary forces if we are to keep moving the backward areas of the World up the rungs of the ladder of civilisation.

 

[Ayn Rand]

SiLL, I re-read the article, paying attention in detail to the points you raised.

Controversial topics like that rarely offer a pleasant experience.

We've had our share in this country, war has that effect and doubtless it will be the same in Germany if you take up your responsibilities (as you should)

It does absolutely not, as it stated right away that many global player were involved. Nor claimed the article that the USA stood any chance in achieving their imperialistic goal in an ideal way. Nor did it use the word "monopolistic imperialism" nor "imperialism" nor "monopolistic" nor a word being a synonym for that.

You're right, it doesn't directly say that.

Well for the record too: I acknowledge the fact that the German forces are doing a poor fighting job, which has several reasons and could fill a thread itself. I personally don't feel upset by someone pointing that out. What upsets me is if the conclusion is that other forces would hence have to defend our freedom as I don't see our freedom at stake.

America and Britain have sheltered the Germans for a long time, and it has made them too naive and unWorldly in their outlook. Your country doesn't have the history or experience of dealing with large areas of the World like America has and Britain used to have.

That seems very unfair. Those pointless insurgencies seem to achieve their aim of being allowed to keep a share of the power in Afghanistan. So they are quit successful after all.

If Iraq had not burst into insurgency, the Americans would have left after two years, the insurgents would have had democratic power-sharing and everyone would have been wealthier, with their freedom and contact to the World restored. Same in Afghanistan.

But they were occupied by the USA, so they just had to start an insurgency.

Also, what exact vane delusions are you referring to? I really don't know.

Iraqi attempt to dominate the World's oil supply and unite the Arabs. Afghanistans attack on New York apparently without the slightest concern for the consequences to themselves.


SiLL, can you elaborate in more detail what you think the article is trying to say and what the implications are, for Afghanistan, Germany and NATO?

 

[lovett]

In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan is, if anything, a happy accident for the West: it gave them an in to the Central Asian game that everyone saw coming but expected China (trying to get the oil and gas to their growing industry) and Russia (trying to encourage the Central Asian governments to reduce production and channel their distribution through Russia) to be the only serious players in. Instead, we now have a three-player game, which the Europeans would do well to stay involved in.

Why is the game worth playing?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Credibility?

Are you sure it wasn't because 2000 people were killed by attacks set off by an organization operating out of Afghanistan?

And the need to destroy that organization so it doesn't happen again?

The fact that the organization was based in Afghanistan is why we attacked Afghanistan and not, say, Tanzania. However, the reasoning for attacking Afghanistan is a lot more complex than simply "they attacked us, therefore we attack them."

You see, even the complete destruction of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan wouldn't do a damned thing about the wider problem of terrorism. Fighting terrorism is a great deal more complicated than taking out the single organization that orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. On a certain level, it is not only difficult but impossible to completely prevent terrorist attacks on the United States or any other country, for that matter. No country can be completely secure from terrorism. That's a hard truth that it would do well to recall in any argument about the subject. Most Americans haven't really internalized this, but given that it takes only a few people to conduct an extremely dramatic attack on the United States, it's basically pointless arguing about it. The entire American security establishment understands this in private, and it gets very frustrating when leaders and law enforcement officials promise that no further attacks will occur. They hope no further attacks will occur. They will take measures to try to prevent further attacks from occurring. But they cannot by any means guarantee that such attacks will not happen again.

What all this has to do with attacking Al-Qaeda is that the folks holed up in Afghanistan are not necessary to international terrorism. AQ is as much a symbol as it is an organizing network, and ever since we hit Afghanistan, its organizing capabilities have been severely hampered. On the other hand, people still try international terrorism under the Al-Qaeda banner. Remember the underpants bomber? The organization he claimed to come from, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, actually has very little to do with the Al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. It started calling itself "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," and the AQ leadership in Afghanistan said, "Sure, whatever floats your boat." Al-Qaeda doesn't need to even exist for another 9/11 to happen. It helps having an heir to a construction empire bankrolling such dramatic operations, but you can still get some pretty dramatic results with fewer resources if you have enough people--and given that 9/11 required only 19 hijackers and one organizer, "enough" is not a lot. In other words, even if you completely destroyed Al-Qaeda, killed Bin Ladin, etc., etc., etc., you would still have the problem of international terrorism. And now that Al-Qaeda amounts to little more than 500 men running scared in the mountains of Pakistan (CIA estimate, with British, French, Russian, and Pakistani intelligence all concurring), we really don't need to worry about Al-Qaeda anymore.

On top of that, invading Afghanistan to get Al-Qaeda is, to use an old Chinese phrase, like lighting a furnace to burn a hair. Al-Qaeda never numbered more than 2 or 3,000 men under arms and 20,000 theoretical and material supporters (these are also CIA numbers). Most of those supporters were outside Afghanistan, sending money, arms, and the like but not actively involved in fighting. Afghanistan is a mountainous country of 28 million people. Any military operation against Al-Qaeda by the United States would necessarily had to have been overkill if that was its sole purpose.

Of course, this was because the Taliban were sheltering Al-Qaeda. However, we frankly didn't have much of a beef with the Taliban until 9/11. Please recall that we had negotiated with the Taliban leader the previous year in order to help Unocal build that pipeline. Throughout the 90s, we never really gave a damn about Afghanistan other than that. We did continue to recognize the Northern Alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, but that was mostly because everyone else did; Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were exceptions, and served as good intermediaries.

So let's consider the United States' strategic choice after 9/11. You know that the organization that attacked you consists of a couple thousand crazies in holed up in Afghanistan. Setting aside issues of calming your frightened populace and maintaining your credibility as a global power, what's the calculus? On one hand, the crazies will be difficult to find and harder to kill or capture, and they enjoy the protection of the Afghan government. That means that if you want to fight them, you'll have to fight the Taliban. On the other hand, you have no desire to fight the Taliban: besides the fact that the Soviets proved that fighting a war in Afghanistan is a nigh-impossible proposition, you've actually got a good thing going with the Taliban. They recently agreed to let you build a pipeline across their territory (or whatever), and an invasion would delay construction. They're close to the Saudis and Pakistanis and enemies of the Iranians. In other words, the Taliban aren't a government you'd be particularly keen to fight, for reasons of cost and geopolitics.

Or in short: Without factoring the fact that both the frightened American people and the international community were expecting the US to do something about Al-Qaeda, there would be no reason for the US to do anything in Afghanistan.

However, the people were scared: they wanted the government to do something to prove that they could keep them safe. And the international community, while hardly scared, was deeply interested in what the United States would do next: Would it sit around and dither, or would it act decisively? If the former, it would be a troubling sign: it would mean that the United States had either lost the will or the capability to act on a global scale. That would make it a superpower no more. Its allies would rush to find new friends, and its enemies and rivals would be only too glad to oblige. If the latter, the United States could still be treated as the world's sole superpower despite the dramatic attack, and it would still be wise to toe previous lines.

As things happened, the United States attacked Afghanistan. This proved to the international community that the US could still act on an international scale, and it made it look to the people that the government was acting to protect them. In point of fact, the invasion of Afghanistan didn't really make us incredibly safer. To be sure, it had some effect. But at the end of the day, it was a dramatic response to a dramatic provocation, designed to show everyone that the US was still on top.

 

[Mansa Musa]

Though from my first impression you remain a deluded bone head, you got a point on the pipeline. The article itself you posted wasn't of much use, but a there linked BBC-article was. I accept that it seems that the creation of a specific pipeline can not be viewed as one of the more significant underlying causes of the Afghanistan war..

So are you still going to fall prey to conspiracy theories like most Europeans do. For some reason, everything America does is fishy to you Europeans. I don't really understand it. Ever since you guys lost the second world war, I guess self loathing wasn't enough. Believing conspiracy theories and using them to support your flawed ideas about geopolitics is quite pathetic.
Moderator Action: Such comments are inappropriate and hamper any discussion. If you have a particular incident of European self-loathing that you care to reference and document, please do so; otherwise don't bother to post your biased generalizations here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Why is the game worth playing?

For Europeans, it's worth playing because Central Asia is the next big source of natural gas. Russia will run out of gas long before Central Asia does, and while we hope that we'd be weaned off of fossil fuels by then, one must always hedge one's bets. Additionally, staying in the game means that more Central Asian gas goes to Europe, lowering European prices.

For Americans, it's worth playing because there's really no other choice. We have to make it clear that China cannot simply eat up as many resources as it pleases. It's also (again) a search for lower prices for us, but it's also a question of keeping China in check.

 

[bhsup]

This is all silliness. We would have never invaded Afghanistan and gained a presence there if we'd not been attacked on September 11th, 2001. So unless there is actually a suggestion that the taliban and al-queda were in collusion with western forces so as to bring about our presence there so we could secure a pipeline, this goes nowhere.

 

[warpus]

@warpus -

There are certain goods [such as oil, but any others also] that necessity compels us to acquire, and in order to acquire access to the trade and markets of the World, a certain amount of force is required. Some countries only tolerate us through fear, while others that now negotiate freely with us would dictate to us the moment we became weak.

We would be driven out of our markets and off our raw material base if we did not exert, continuously, our influence throughout the strategic regions of the World. In order to exert our influence, we must be prepared, militarily, for more or less uninterrupted war, at some point or other constantly.

The Americans acquire these goods more or less on behalf of the West. They also carry out a fundamental police role across the greater part of the World. Under the protection of this umbrella, Germany has been protected and free - but has grown soft and forgotten the hardships and responsibilities that reality brings.

So you are saying.. That the U.S. (and some allies) are fighting in Afghanistan so that the West can have more oil, so that the Germans (and others) can have the freedom of being able to use oil for transportation and all the other things that oil is used for.

(right?)

But like.. there is no oil in Afghanistan.

If America were driven by force out of afghanistan and Iraq, then although the effects may not be immediate, the long-term consequences to the security and freedom of the West would be profound. Just look at the Gulf war or the Arab oil embargo, when rival States tried to deprive us of our means of survival and to drive us into submission to them.

So before the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan the Germans lacked certain freedoms (transportation, plastic?) and there was a profound effect on their security?

I don't get your logic but I am trying to understand..

 

[Mansa Musa]

For Europeans, it's worth playing because Central Asia is the next big source of natural gas. Russia will run out of gas long before Central Asia does, and while we hope that we'd be weaned off of fossil fuels by then, one must always hedge one's bets. Additionally, staying in the game means that more Central Asian gas goes to Europe, lowering European prices.

For Americans, it's worth playing because there's really no other choice. We have to make it clear that China cannot simply eat up as many resources as it pleases. It's also (again) a search for lower prices for us, but it's also a question of keeping China in check.

Russia will not run out of natural gas before Central Asia does. Russia has the largest gas reserves in the world. Let's look at the numbers perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves

Look, there's 3 main ways Natural gas will get to Western markets and none of it has to do with Afghanistan (which was the main gist of the thread as I recall)

1. The northern route favoured by Russia. According to this option, Kazakhstan would expand its existing pipelines to link them to the Russian network and Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. The shortcomings of this option have to do with fears of establishing excessive Russian control over the pipeline and also the issue of security, since the pipeline would go through Chechnya.

2. The western route favoured by Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and the United States. This pipeline route would bring the oil to the Georgian port of Supsa and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey insists that the straits cannot cope with increased tanker traffic and has proposed, instead, to construct a pipeline from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. However, excessive costs (around $2.9 billion) and serious security concerns (this route would pass through unstable Kurdish territory) make this option difficult to implement. Instead, the Bosporus could be by-passed by a pipeline linking the Bulgarian port of Burgas with the Greek port of Alexandroupolis.

3. The southern route. Economically, this is the most viable option, since Iran already has an extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is a good exit to the Asian markets. The United States, however, has practically vetoed this option.

4. Eastern route. This pipeline would transport oil from Kazakhstan to China. It will be the costliest pipeline (covering 2,000 km in Kazakhstan alone) but the Chinese consider it as a strategic decision and are willing to implement it.

Anyways, is there a Great Game being played for Natural gas? The Great Game in the 19th century involved warfare, coups against leaders and numerous invasions. Russia hasn't needed to invade Kazakhstan and Iran hasn't needed to invade Azerbaijan. There's deals going about for differing companies etc. but the "Great Game" you speak of hasn't happened....yet.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I have to go, so I'll be brief.

1. With the advent of the equality of states and sanctity of sovereignty--i.e. the universal application of the Westphalian System to all states post-WWII--invasion for the purposes of annexation has become illegitimate by default. Hence no invasions. As for coups, etc: What do you think we did in 2002 and 2003?

2. Because borders are now more or less rigid, things work differently (see 1). The Game is in its early stages. And Afghanistan is not important for any pipelines through it but because its internal problems are very important to the dynamics of the region. Pakistan, India, and Iran have been fighting for at least fifty years over Who Controls Afghanistan. The introduction of the US to the affair has made it "more or less no-one," but it gives the US (and thus Europe) an excuse to be directly in Central Asia (bases, etc). From there, we get a US base in Kyrgyzstan and other former Central Asian SSRs, allowing us to develop working relationships and secure contracts with the local governments/strongmen.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

America and Britain have sheltered the Germans for a long time, and it has made them too naive and unWorldly in their outlook. Your country doesn't have the history or experience of dealing with large areas of the World like America has and Britain used to have.

I would rather say that the German government somewhat exploits the shelter. Yes, we got comfortable in it. But more important is probably the populous sentiment, which I would not describe as unworldly, just as I would not describe it worldly in America.
America just simply has a connection between success and greatness and war wired into its national consciousness through the experience of WWII and the fight against Communism. The result is a general greater willingness to military-wise engage in world politics.
While Germany has wired failure and misery into its consciousness.

So we are talking about psychological mass phenomenas rooted in history. Not about a general greater or lesser understanding of world politics only which would justify the term "worldly" IMO.

If Iraq had not burst into insurgency, the Americans would have left after two years, the insurgents would have had democratic power-sharing and everyone would have been wealthier, with their freedom and contact to the World restored. Same in Afghanistan.

In general I agree. However those insurgencies look for their own power, not the well-being of the population. Just as the US will ultimately look for its own power (of which allies are a part of) and not for the well-being of humanity.
So in this regard I still think that their actions are far from pointless.

But they were occupied by the USA, so they just had to start an insurgency.

Well the Taliban would fight anyone I'd say. In Iraq this has something to do with it, but it is in the end so much more complex.

A couple of examples:
- When the Coalition forces reached Baghdad, the original security provided by Iraqi police forces etc. naturally collapsed. The result was massive plundering, which the US did not even try to stop. This angered the local population of course. Occupants arrive, things get messy, occupants don't do anything about it. The citizens had to organize independent militias to regain basic security on the streets. Not a good start to win the population's trust.
But it is also said that already active insurgents actively supported the plundering in order to enhance the effect. Which was of course unknown to the population.

- In Baghdad hospitals lacked much needed equipment for months, power was down for months as well, again not helping to be happy about the occupants, as is the fact, that the old bureaucracy had not been cleaned and former members of the Ba-hath-party were asked to join the effort to reorganize Iraq

-When Bremer decided to dissolve the entire Iraqi army, secret service and ministry of information without any kind of compensation he caused massive uproar. Thousands of people with military or political skill did found themselves suddenly without income. Poverty got a nice boost, as did the insurgency.

So in the eyes of an Iraqi worsening living conditions and the US occupation went practically hand in hand. Is it of so much surprise that they are not very keen of the occupation forces?

Iraqi attempt to dominate the World's oil supply and unite the Arabs.

Doesn't the US try to do the same as you correctly pointed out in your response to warpus (if I interpret this reply correctly)? I mean that with regard to oil supply, obviously not the unity of the Arab people (which would be a geopolitical disaster to all other global players).

Now you may argue that the US has at least has the might to also partially accomplish this, however the US also clearly encouraged the Iraq to attack the Iran and some evidence even suggests the same for the Iraqi attack on Kuwait to a lesser extend.

Afghanistans attack on New York apparently without the slightest concern for the consequences to themselves.

I beg to differ. Afghanistan did not attack America. Hell the attackers weren't even Afghani. As far as I know the Taliban also did not directly support Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaida (and I am sure the Afghani leadership had no idea about 9/11). I read once on this board that Al Qaida kind of was a cumbersomeness for the Taliban, which they endured for reasons of publicity and financial aid by Al Qaida.

SiLL, can you elaborate in more detail what you think the article is trying to say and what the implications are, for Afghanistan, Germany and NATO?

As I understand it it basically says this: Terrorism has ceased to can be argued to be of any relevance for the issue of Afghanistan and to argue that further efforts in the region are made for the sake of humanitarian aid are highly hypocritical. So when troops are asked to fight and risk their lives and when the people are asked to (financially) support this, they should be told the real reason for the ongoing efforts in the region. Which are of geopolitical nature.

So the implication is that Germany and the entire NATO is in good old geopolitical manner exclusively looking for their own interests of power and therefor are so strong-willed to not let the Taliban win. At least by now argumentations of freedom, well-being of the Afghani people or prevention of terrorism are not much more than a giant big straw-man in order to justify the mission in front of the voters.

You know I don't even argue that the American/NATO engagement in the Middle East is in German's favor as well. In your reply to warpus you said that for instances the access to oil needed to be military secured. And I agree. The world is still no dollhouse, the fight over power in all its shapes and forms continues ever since the birth of civilizations.

What I argue is when all this is justified with "freedom" and "democracy" and all that jazz. It is incredibly disrespectful to the people who vote for you. All this pretense of higher moral values... The people should be told what the government really is doing in the world and to what end. Everything else is a bad joke in a democracy.

 

[holy king]

Hmm, I think about 120,000 until 1945 ´´

the red army called that a slow tuesday morning.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So are you still going to fall prey to conspiracy theories like most Europeans do. For some reason, everything America does is fishy to you Europeans. I don't really understand it. Ever since you guys lost the second world war, I guess self loathing wasn't enough. Believing conspiracy theories and using them to support your flawed ideas about geopolitics is quite pathetic.

That's it man. Just unpack this huge nasty cudgel called "Conspiracy theory". It is clearly superior to argumentation or knowledge.

Look, there's 3 main ways Natural gas will get to Western markets and none of it has to do with Afghanistan (which was the main gist of the thread as I recall)

Okay, once again... It is not just about this pipeline! By far not!
Read the freaking article.

However, you are still unable or unwilling to address the whole geopolitical scope of the matter and prefer to hack on one single point instead.

Your are very consistent in your approaches, I'll give you that.

This is all silliness. We would have never invaded Afghanistan and gained a presence there if we'd not been attacked on September 11th, 2001.

Maybe, maybe not. An invasion of Afghanistan had been suggested by a right-wing think-tank with close connection to Dick Chaney before 9/11. For reasons of energy politics. This proposed war got also actually planned by the Pentagon before 9/11. And this think-tank even said that an event like Pearl Harbor would be necessary to mobilize the public for such an war effort.

Now, I am not saying or trying to imply that 9/11 was orchestrated by officials. There is no evidence for such a bold claim.

All I am doing is listing some facts, which strongly imply one conclusion: 9/11 was a freaking Christmas gift for the Bush administration. Like it or not, but it was the best thing which could happen politically for them.

Also it is not so obvious to me as it seems to be to many others that the natural reaction to an terrorist attack is to bomb and invade an entire country.

edit: @Lockesdonkey Got only know to read to rest of your posts. Your understanding of the whole situation in Central Asia clearly surpasses mine and I love you for it.