Translate

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Endless Afghanistan

Via Ad Orientem.
The 25-page “Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” is a sweeping document, vague in places, highly specific in others, defining everything from the types of future missions U.S. troops would be allowed to conduct in Afghanistan, to the use of radios and the taxation of American soldiers and contractors...
Afghan officials tell NBC NEWS the agreement is critical to Afghanistan’s future stability. Without ongoing military assistance, training and funding, those officials say the government could collapse and Afghanistan would enter a civil war. If the agreement passes, the draft says Washington would commit to a long -term, indefinite military involvement in this land-locked Asian nation.
Pardon my Anglo-Saxon but, what the f***ing f***.

Further to my comment on the Phillipines, why are we propping up this pseudo-country? Why isn't Afghanistan a US colony governed by an American Raj and selling us opium and goat meat at a discount in exchange for their improving mortality rates. Why isn't the place opened up to American settlers who can go native or not as they damn well please? If the Afghans can't exercise sovereignty over their own territory, they are fair game for those who can.

Otherwise, leave and tell the Afghans the survival of their State is not the concern of the American taxpayer. And by the way, any extra-territorial trouble from them and we turn the place into a glass sheet.

I am really getting tired of this s***.

8 comments:

John (Ad Orientem) said...

But it is a US colony and the current so called government is little more than a US backed Raj. The opium is also flowing, though I think they need to work on the goat's meat. The settlers will have to wait until the natives have been relocated somewhere out of the way. Reservations perhaps?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

If it were an actual colony instead of just a pile of rocks in central Asia, the Afghans would be paying for the privilege of having us there to keep them from slaughtering each other. If such attitudes offend American sensibilities, then Americans need to get out of the imperialism business.

lannes said...

You're getting more foul-mouthed by the day. Try to be a little more refined, OK?

Jason said...

AG,
To answer your question, the answer, as always these days, is MONEY.

If we're able to keep forces there, then that means massive economic benefits for defense contractors and their representatives in government; a system otherwise known as graft.

For a US-backed Raj system to work, the Raj or ruling family would have to be as rich as the Saudis, which the Afghanis are not and will never be. Therefore, the gravy train rests on contracts and the way to keep that going is permanent occupation.

Just thinking about the fact that we're going to have a fully equiped army patrolling a geographic no-man's land to fight supposed enemies that have no air force, limited fire power and IEDs, is sickening.

DJF said...

The US has never been good at the colonization business. The Philippines cost the US far more then the US got out of it. Guam only value is for the Pentagon's world wide defense of globalism. The US Virgin Islands outside of the tourist zones is a crime ridden third world country. Puerto Rico has been a basket case for more then 100 years.

One of Puerto Rico's claims to fame is that "by 2010, nine of the top 10 U.S. ZIP Codes for workers receiving disability benefits were on the island"

http://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-disability-fraud-puerto-rico

The US was pretty good at the expand the nation business. It took over large parts of North America, killing, driving out or marginalizing the natives while flooding the area with Americans. But that was a century ago and now the US is being colonized. Eisenhower's deporting the Mexicans was the last gasp of that and then the 1963 immigration bill was the end of the old policy

Anonymous said...

Empires generally don't benefit the majority of the home country. They benefit relatively narrow interests - merchants, industrialists, corporations, etc. from the home country that engage in trade with the colonies and obtain concessions, and caciques, the cooperating local rulers from the native population. The benefits are concentrated while the costs are dispersed and distributed among the majority of the home country, who pay in terms of blood as soldiers as well as in treasure and loss of independence through taxes and through facing competition from foreign products and labor, which the empire makes available via its trade networks.

Anonymous said...

We do have an empire. Chalmers Johnson wrote a classic piece on America's "empire of bases":

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_america%27s_empire_of_bases

Jason said...

^ Excellent link, Anon.