Afghanistan: The Occupation, Part II

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/23-2



Meet the new occupation: same as the old occupation! Or pretty much: not as many troops, not as many dead and wounded every week, but still. In the new US-Afghanistan accord—which may or may not be ratified early next week by President Hamid Karzai’s Loya Jirga, and which may or may not be signed until some in mid-2014—the United States will be able to maintain as many as nine military bases in Afghanistan. In addition, American troops and US contractors can go in and out of Afghanistan without visas. And neither the troops nor the contractors will be subject to Afghan law.

In a hilarious statement of his priorities, Karzai said: “We want the Americans to respect our sovereignty and laws and be an honest partner. And bring a lot of money.” The delegates to the Loya Jirga laughed, said The New York Times.

The Afghan foreign ministry released draft text of the accord, which (among other things) codifies that the United States must continue to finance Afghanistan’s ragtag security forces indefinitely, or at least through 2024, saying “the United States shall have an obligation to seek funds on a yearly basis to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of” the Afghan forces.

According to The Washington Post: “The United States can maintain up to nine bases, and American troops and support contractors will be able to enter Afghanistan without having to obtain a visa.” Karzai said that as many as 15,000 foreign troops could remain in Afghanistan through 2024. Of those, it’s expected that less than 10,000 would be American troops, including Special Forces units that, under the terms of the accord, will be able to conduct night raids against targets suspected of terrorism. And the bases can be used, presumably, for launching drone attacks against targets in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[libodem]

1. Somebody has to control

The heroin trade. Might as well be the US.

[obxhead]

3. Not control, simply protect.

Why not the US, we've been protecting it for over a decade now already.

[libodem]

4. And I have no proof

But I also have no doubt that our intelligent agencies funnel it into countries we wish to undermine.

Oh, wait America has a huge resurgence of the use of this deadly drug. Never mind.

[pscot]

2. Why?

What makes this worth the lives and money and grief it will cost us?