Why Are Troops Still in Afghanistan?
It seems like a pretty straight forward question with an easy answer. Does it not? One might think the US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 because of terrorism. Perhaps that's true even though 15 of the alleged 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, but we didn't invade Saudi Arabia now did we? Nope.
As I was exploring Wikileaks today, I stumbled upon an unclassified NATO document entitled 'NATO Master Narrative 2008.' It was within this document where I was surprised to read the following.
"Afghanistan remains NATO’s number one priority. This is not an operation of choice, it is one of necessity. We are in Afghanistan for the long term under a United Nations mandate for as long as we are needed and welcomed by the Afghan people." – (Page 1)
That certainly got the wheels spinning as a mandate is an authoritative command, which means it's a command given by an authority. So I got to thinking how in the worlds did the U.S. put itself in a position where the United Nations are calling the shots?
As it turns out because of UN Security Council Resolution 1386 there was established one International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the stated goal of this force is to aid the Afghan Interm Authority by providing security to the region.
The power players of this security council are the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. So, let that roll around in your head for a little bit. We are not at war with Afghanistan. We are there as part of NATO at the behest of the Afghan people, to provide "security."
Now if I was under the false impression that it was a war, when it's officially not, then what are the chances that the people in the country getting bombed are also unaware? I mean, after the bombing of so many wedding parties it's only a matter of time before the people call shenanigans. Right?
"..for as long as we are needed and welcomed by the Afghan people."I should also mention this security resolution was finalized and adopted in late 2001. So, technically we haven't been at war with Afghanistan for over 17 years now. When we did go to "war" with the country, it was only for a little over two months. Even then, for official purposes, it was not a war. Congress authorized the use of military force, but war was never declared.
US Official Declarations of War
Wikileaks: nato-master-narrative-2008.pdf
Would a war by any other name smell as putrid?
The image above is brought to you courtesy of Pixabay
http://images.google.com/images?q=afghanistan+protest+us
Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan
What irks me is the use of the word war, even
as a metaphor. You can't end what never began.
Congress needs to deauthorize the use of military
force, or somehow be held accountable for the
military force they authorize. The Kellogg-Briand
Pact tried to hold accountable the peoples who
war, so those people simply stopped declaring it.
Metaphor or no, the Horton book looks interesting.
The hawks in Congress probably think it's cute when
Americans protest something that is not happening.
The book is incredible. It's amazing how little of a chance of "victory" there ever was.
Posted using Partiko Android
Curated for #informationwar (by @thoughts-in-time)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
It's a position taken 'only' when it 'suits' those in control, and often used as an excuse for doing what 'they' in reality fully endorse and encourage for whatever malevolent reasons held to. But...that's just my opinion ;>)
Y we westerners gotta pay for nation building. Where's the other players on the security council? Yeah nah. Got the target, gtfo and let the locals decide how they want their county and spend their own poppy money doing it. Got homeless here and burning churches to rebuild.
Well said.