Will we really "leave" Afghanistan, or will we stay like we stay in Iraq?

[SarahM32]

There's an article on OpEdNews.com at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Reason-For-The-Af-by-Russ-Baker-120910-576.html titled The Real Reason for the War In Afghanistan, which is because of its natural resources.

As Alan Greenspan so notably admitted, "The war in Iraq was about oil," and sure enough, we have stayed in Iraq because of it. We haven't really "pulled out and left an independent country," as some would have us believe.

"

The U.S. government's enormously expensive occupation Iraq is not coming to an end. As Dan Froomkin has reported, U.S. diplomats, military advisers and other officials are planning to fall back to a giant embassy in Baghdad, a heavily fortified, self-contained compound the size of Vatican City. Costing three quarters of a billion dollars to build, with high walls, guard towers and machine-gun emplacements, with 20 other buildings, including residential quarters, a gym and swimming pool, commercial facilities, a power station and a water-treatment plant.

About 16,000 personnel will be required to operate it, about 10 percent will be program staff, 10 percent management and aviation, 30 percent life support contractors, and 50 percent security. There will also be a private contracted army of over 5,000 to guard the embassy and other diplomatic outposts and protect personnel as they travel beyond the fortifications. Another 3,000 armed guards will protect personnel responsible for sales and training related to an estimated $13 billion in pending U.S. arms sales to Iraq, including tanks, squadrons of attack helicopters and 36 F-16s.

The State Department asked Congress for $2.7 billion for its Iraqi operations in fiscal year 2011, and got $2.1 billion. It wants $6.2 billion for next year. Estimates are that cost of operation will be $25 to $30 billion over the next five years, and $3 billion will be spent in the next five years on major private security contracts alone.

Construction of the embassy began in 2005 by the Bush Administration, obviously to ensure that the U.S. has a very firm foothold in Iraq and access to its oil. And the Obama Administration has done nothing to stop it. Consequently, U.S. taxpayer’s money continues to be squandered so that U.S. oil companies and military contractors can continue profiting.

"

That's a quote from the end of an article on Bush's Real Record, and it reveals that these wars have an ostensible purpose -- one to sell the public and the troops who fight them -- and a hidden purpose, so that American industry has a solid foothold.
.

[MrSlayer]

1. We'll be there for ten more years at least.

It's crazy or naive to think we're leaving anywhere we invade, ever. We're still in Germany, Japan and Korea.

[brooklynite]

2. ...and yet, we're pulling most of our troops out.

Perhaps not on your preferred timetable.//

[SarahM32]

3. You miss the point.

The U.S. government's enormously expensive occupation Iraq is not coming to an end. As Dan Froomkin has reported, U.S. diplomats, military advisers and other officials are planning to fall back to a giant embassy in Baghdad, a heavily fortified, self-contained compound the size of Vatican City. Costing three quarters of a billion dollars to build, with high walls, guard towers and machine-gun emplacements, with 20 other buildings, including residential quarters, a gym and swimming pool, commercial facilities, a power station and a water-treatment plant.

About 16,000 personnel will be required to operate it, about 10 percent will be program staff, 10 percent management and aviation, 30 percent life support contractors, and 50 percent security. There will also be a private contracted army of over 5,000 to guard the embassy and other diplomatic outposts and protect personnel as they travel beyond the fortifications. Another 3,000 armed guards will protect personnel responsible for sales and training related to an estimated $13 billion in pending U.S. arms sales to Iraq, including tanks, squadrons of attack helicopters and 36 F-16s.

The State Department asked Congress for $2.7 billion for its Iraqi operations in fiscal year 2011, and got $2.1 billion. It wants $6.2 billion for next year. Estimates are that cost of operation will be $25 to $30 billion over the next five years, and $3 billion will be spent in the next five years on major private security contracts alone.

Construction of the embassy began in 2005 by the Bush Administration, obviously to ensure that the U.S. has a very firm foothold in Iraq and access to its oil. And the Obama Administration has done nothing to stop it. Consequently, U.S. taxpayer’s money continues to be squandered so that U.S. oil companies and military contractors can continue profiting

.

As the article says, the giant embassy and huge military presence, as well as all the military "aid" is "obviously to ensure that the U.S. has a very firm foothold in Iraq and ready access to its oil. Halliburton has been in charge of Iraqi oil since the initial U.S. invasion.

It's about oil. It always has been. And in Afghanistan it's about mineral resources.
.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. We still have troops in Germany and Japan

So it's likely that we'll still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as their respective governments allow it.

[rachel1]

5. I suspect that there'll be a permanent US military presence

in both Afghanistan & Iraq.