Actually, I meant existential...not in the philosophical sense of Thoreau but in the literal sense of relating to our existence. Terrorism is not, in and of itself, a threat that is relevant to our continued existence...it is not an existential threat.


Dax, the war in Iraq was not about Terrorism, or not entirely about terrorism...or even mostly about terrorism...it was about our interests in the region. The focus on combating terrorism was a convienent one in that it served to galvanize public opinion at the time. It also had the benefit of being true, despite your belief that everything Bush ever said is a lie...its just that combating terrorism is not, nor should it be, the primary focus.

We have interests in the Middle East beyond terrorism. First and foremost among htose interests is the undisrupted flow of oil to world markets. You already know this and I suspect you fully realize how important that is to our survival in the West. You also understand the potential for increasing expansion of radical islam to destablize governments in the Middle East and replace them with governments hostile to the West. This clearly has the potential to disrupt the supply of oil reaching us in the West and thereby devestating our why of life. Indeed, one of the rallying cries being voiced more and more recently among the jihadist movements is the "theft of Islamic patrimony" in the form of oil sales to the "infidels of the West." So, there is compelling reason for us to involve ourselves in the region and to manipulate events to whatever extent necessary to ensure governments willing to sell us (not just eh US but all the West) oil at sustainable rates remain in power or come to power where required.

People can wail about "no blood for oil" or the "war for oil" or whatever else they choose to bitch about, Dax. At the end of the day, our economy and the way of life it supports through out the Western world is founded on oil. That is worth fighting for anywhere in the world. I think our governments are extremely foolish for not giving the search for alternatives to oil a far greater strategic national priority so that we can disentangle ourselves from the region...but that is a seperate matter.

Thank you, Lawmage, you've finaaly given us your thoughts about Afghanistan rather than fighting me over things I've never said.

Don't you dare take that and run with it into your playground of misdirecting, overwhelming words!

By IsI, I asuume you mean Inter-Services-Inteligence in Pakistan. I know what it means, because I looked it up. How many others who read these posts do the same?

Given no explanation of either ISI or your contention that the "Taliban is largely a criation of the Pakistani ISI in the first place," how are we to judge your statements? You've said before, after all, that 'Taliban' means 'students'--people who come from affluent families.

The American public, if they think about the Taliban at all, see the Taliban as extremist Muslims who shoot to kill--those very same Muslim extremists that you have said, over and over again, are conditioned by their beliefs to end the Western World. (Okay, you haven't said it that way, but you've said it that way.)

Are you suggesting that Why?

Most of our money is going to the war in Iraq. Is that an interest in oil producing countries? Or is it it terrorist producing countries?

Liz...STOP!!!! I did indeed say that Taliban means "The Students" but I never said anything about affluent families...that is your addition based on your faulty understanding of the socio-dynamics in the area. The Taliban rank and file DID NOT come from affluent families...they generally came from dirt poor families who sent their sons off to madrassas where they would be feed and housed rather than watching them waste away in the refugee camps in Pakistan.

Why did Pakistan allow (it actually formed rather than allowed to form) the Taliban to form? For several reasons I have previously explained. It was extremely destablizing for Pakistan to have anarchy in its neighbor Afghanistan. It flooded pakistan with refugees that did not fit into Pakistani culture and society which is far mor cosmopolitan than is that of Afghanistan (though not so much by Western standards.) These refugees were already pretty radicalized from the war against the Soviets and they were getting increasingly radicalized in the madrassas funded by our Saudi friends. So, it was in pakistan's interest to find somewhere else for them to go...back to Afghanistan.

That required some sort of stabilization there. Pakistan takes a calculated risk with a stabilized afghanistan though. You see, the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group there and they dominant Afghan society and government, such as it is. There are Pashtuns in Pakistan but they are a small minority and a source of trouble for the Pakistani government as witnessed by the issue of Greater Pashtunistan (again, look it up.) So, pakistan needed an intstrument that would bring stability to Afghanistan but NOT raise the Greater Pashtunistan issue again. A radicalized islamic government was one such instrument and was the one the ISI elected to use. Perhaps their experience building Islamic radical groups for use in the Kashmir made such a choice the obvious one for them to use to address Afghanistan...we can only speculate.

As for oil...I have explained that at length previously, liz. Oil is important to our way of life...important enough to fight over. We are concerned with islamic terrorism precisely because it threatens our access to oil. That threat is considerably less in Afghanistan and Pakistan (non-oil producers) than it is in Iraq or the Middle East proper. Hence, the disparate allocation of resources.

Forgive me for butting in in what seems to be a private discussion between Liz and Law...But when law posted :
What you said here is quite correct,but there are several jokers in the deck that you failed to mention...namely Saudi Arabia , China and Russia.
First Saudi Arabia , a thoroughly corrupt regime , that we are propping up , because thats our only option. We dare not to invade that country because of Mecca and Medina...even tho most of our enemies (men , philosophy , and finance ) originate in this Kingdom...but if we invaded 1.5 billion moslem , from Indnesia to Morroco would be up in arms and most of these governments would be toppled as a consequence unless they sided with the Jihadists.
Now this is only hypothetical a what if proposition...
But in the mean time China is building pipelines across Asia all the way to Iran and the Caspian oil regions...they are also making treaties (to build refineries and help opening up new fields) with the governments of Venezuela and the Sudan...why are they doing that ? Because they are in the same position that the west , they need the oil. Ater all their economy is flush with american dollars.
Now as far as the third party is concerned , namely Russia...they are sitting in the "catbird seat"...they will deal with anyone , as long as the money is there...And where does most of that money come from ? The West thats where.
In the end , it is probable that the marketplace will be the deciding factor...no matter how many soldiers were stationed in the middle east the oil price went to 100 dollars per barrel regardless. After all, it is not the military that controls oil prices , but it is tha oil company that does.