WHY ARE ARE ARMED FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN? Pt 1

To eradicate the Taliban?

To assure a supply of poppy/heroin to the Wall Street profiteers?

To assure the Petrocorps a safe pipeline route?

Perhaps because of all of the above. Perhaps none of the above.

Initially,our sole interest supposedly was to get Osama bin Laden. Yet instead of sending in a few special force troops to accomplish this, we began to bomb the daylights out of the country and population. Recently Obama has ordered 10,000 to 30,000 more troops there to vanquish the "oppressors".

According to Charley Reece,". . The northern warlords seized Kabul after the Russians left. Their looting and brutality caused many Afghans to look with favor on the young men of the Taliban. The Taliban whipped the warlords and began to rule the country with their iron-fisted version of Islam. It's no mystery why they extended a welcome to bin Laden. He had played a prominent part in the fight against the Soviets. He was a wealthy young man and could easily have spent his time in the world's best resorts. But he picked up a rifle and his checkbook and fought against the Russians. So when the Bush administration demanded that they hand over bin Laden, the Taliban refused. It was in part a matter of hospitality. But we failed with our military might to capture Bin Laden.( some say he is alive and well living in the White House basement. They let him out occasionally to make recorded TV spots.)

Afghanistan has bern invaded numerous times over the centuries, but never conquered.Even the great Ghengis Khan was unable to win there despite the tireless efforts of his viscious army.

The Afghans are a people who rather enjoy fighting. It's been said that if they run out of foreigners to fight, they will fight each other. It would take more troops than we have to occupy Afghanistan, which is about the size of Texas. It is run by the warlords and is a major producer of opium. Corruption is rampant."

In 1904 a British professor of geography, Sir Halford Mackinder, delivered a lecture in which he proposed :

" Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who commands the World Island commands the world." Tanslation: East Europe =Germany to Poland, Austria and France. The Heartland = Eurasia including Russia. Eurasia = all of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Asia and Russia. How nice for the ears of the British Empire.

America emerged from WWII as the replacement for the British Empire.

Our strategists began where Mackinder left off. Quoting Zbigniew Brezinski "Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states...The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there… Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population; 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.

Eurasia is the world's axial super-continent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard…the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy.

Thus, you have the grand strategy of America's foreign policy A history student will see the playing out of this strategy since 1945, including the cold war years.