What was the reason for the Afghanistan attacks in 2001, do you remeber? It was getting Bin Laden.
Well, look at what Defense Secretary Robert Gates had to say on ABC’s “This Week”:
The United States has not had good intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorist Osama bin Laden in years.
No, [I can’t confirm recent reports that bin Laden had been seen recently in Afghanistan].
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5342 access attempts in the last 7 days.
It had nothing to do with Bin Laden, and everything to do with a pipeline:
http://ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
If they build it…they will profit.
Get a clue, people:
http://google.com/search?q=afghanistan+pipeline
Since the invention of the internal combustion engine and even prior, it has nearly ALWAYS been about OIL. Read a book:
The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power, 928 pages, 1991
OR
Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum, 288 pages, 2004
Here’s a hypothetical for you- we have very good intelligence on where Bin Laden is, but can’t spring the trap for some reason.
Do you go on national TV and announce that?
I remember during Gulf War 1, the War Department announced that most of our cruise missile inventory (80-90%? don’t know the exact figure) had been used. My mother was incensed that the traitorous media would actually report the figure. My question to her is the same question I have now- how do you know it’s the truth?
Who knows what these thugs are up to? Our economic partner in the Far East, China, also uses Osama Bin Laden as a boogeyman.
“My mother was incensed that the traitorous media would actually report the figure.”
If that information had been considered damaging to national security it would have been classified and not released to the media in the first place. And I have no doubt the reason that OBL was allowed to escape from Tora Bora and the reason his death or capture is on the very bottom of the priorities list is that he has already been nullified with respect to the terror coordination angle, his network (such as it was) has been obliterated and his death or capture would only lead to his martyrdom, something which would greatly inspire the only real threat which is small, independently operating terrorist cells.
Its all about getting out of a war looking like we won something. It first was for getting Osama but now I guess we settle for Taliban and liberating Afghanistan. If we even accomplish that?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/marines-bypass-taliban-opium-fields-afghanistan.
The (real) deal!
Like another poster stated, they would never release intelligence. Yes they would stand up there and lie to the public to keep from jeopardizing on going missions. Quite frankly the statement rings of disinformation.
Even without the oil theories, the mission in Afghanistan has certainly changed.
The bigger question that needs answering is what threshold we in the Western world have for imposing our values on sovereign nations.
The original mission in Afghanistan was to disrupt Al-Qaeda which subsequently turned into rebuilding a democratic Afghanistan. The first part was actually somewhat successful whereas the latter part has proven very difficult.
The same thing is happening in other places in the world. You enter a scene for a humanitarian/safety issue and you end up staying there for years because you feel a need to “fix issues”. But this begs the question why no one is busy fixing the democracy in Burma?
I don’t know if I support nation building in the first place, but if we’re doing it, we should be calling it that.
Dennis,
Very early in the Bush Administration, Colin Powell announced that we where going to start sending millions of our tax dollars to the Taliban. I remember, at the time, that this inexplicable move was to grease the wheels for a pipeline.
I was living in that region, back then, and remember local people saying that a pipeline is a really bad idea because it will be the endless target of terrorists attacks.
It’s a pretty convincing argument — the pipe line (either south through Balochistan) or west through northern Pakistan to India will run areas full of desperately poor tribal people.
Their traditional lands will be stolen from them to feed the oil-thirst of people FAR FAR richer than they.
It would it be cheap and easy to fill a the trunk of a car with explosives and drive it up to the pipeline and set it off. Considering how remote those areas are, it wouldn’t even need to be a suicide mission.
… oops. I should have said “at the time, PEOPLE WHERE SPECULATING that this inexplicable move was to grease the wheels for a pipeline.”
I vividly remember how strange it seemed for the Bush Administration to be supportive of the Taliban, in the most literal sense.
Back then, I wasn’t as cynical about the Bush Administration and hoped that this move showed their ability for some nuance in their foreign policy. Talk about dashed hopes! What an epic disaster Bush & Co. turned out to be, in that regard. In every regard.
lets see..
What does a CONTROLING world force want in the middle east?
WE DONT want a nation that has a CHOICE to listening to us(Israel, Turkey).
WE dont want a location that can TURN our military away..(same as above)
WE dont want a nation that has a MILITARY POWER(same as above)
We want a BASE, in the middle of ALL of that area.
WE want a location that we dont have to DEBATE/complain to or ABOUT.
WE NEED a location 1/2 way around the world, with ACCESS to FUEL.
WE need a SEA location with VAST areas that are FLAT and open.
WE need a place that can PAY for itself, AFTEr it is created.
WE NEED A BASE
OBL is dead and has been for some time (2004 perhaps). But the US needs a bogeyman and to stop hating binLaden would be just too much of a change.
Ouch. That leap from “What’s the reason for the Afghan war? Well, it isn’t getting bin Laden, not anymore” to “No good intel on Osama bin Laden in years” just gave me whiplash.
How would fighting an Afghanistan war help with finding a person not in the country, anyway?
Recall the reason we are in Afghanistan is to ensure that the government that shielded the 9/11 terrorists is never permitted to govern again. And as similar warning to other rogue nations.
RBG
#13-Walter Bishop-US needs a bogeyman…
All governments need a bogeyman as a way to deflect their failures from the people. Bait and switch is a tried and true method so the ill-used people won’t wheel out the guillotine for them.
Since the US needs a bogeyman may I suggest Barack Obama. At this moment in history he is proving to be more of a danger to the US than bin Laden.
Maybe they need a couple of college kids to go find out for them?
Re: Greg Allen: “I was living in that region, back then, and remember local people saying that a pipeline is a really bad idea because it will be the endless target of terrorists attacks.”
Care to share why you were living there? I wouldn’t consider it… ever.
I don’t recall Ovama saying the objective was getting Bin Laden. That opportunity was squandered by Dick in Bush