My point in the article is just to add more context.
What I'm observing is that prior to 1979, the USA had no interest whatsoever in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had several uprisings and revolutions prior to 79. Those were mostly their own affair, and America didn't care. In 79, the latest revolution left pro-Soviet Afghans in charge.
My opinion is that America started caring in 79 because they had a chance to bleed out the Soviets is all. Our then newfound concern was sold as helping the people and bringing peace, but America never felt the need to help them before. For that matter, legitimate concern and help rarely needs to be covert.
America basically used Afghans to kills Soviets, then bailed out. It feels like a theme.
"In 79, the latest revolution left pro-Soviet Afghans in charge."
And along with them came improvements in health care, education, housing, critical infrastructure and most importantly, women's rights. This part of the narrative gets left out, as does the fact the USSR was requested to help, so '"Soviet Invasion" is just another bit of western propaganda. Had the USA kept out, Afghanistan today would probably look a lot like Tajikistan, which is in far better shape politically and culturally.
I wonder if the equipment the USA abandoned when they left Afghanistan was no accident? Tajikistan shares a border, and they're very nervous about Islamic fundamentalists. It's actually illegal to sell hijab in TJ, and they've even gone so far as to round up men and shave their beards, which is going too far IMO, but it shows how serious they are. Russia and TJ jointly patrol that border, so my guess is if you leave the Taliban a lot of hardware, it makes that area a potential problem and you have to tie up more troops defending it. Just a theory of course.
1. All that gear left behind had negative value in that each item recovered represented a future lost sale for Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics...
2. Each item left behind ensured a future sale of the weapon required to counter it later.
3. When it's Tajikistan turn for American 'help', the MIC will need to be fed again. Were the equipment already in place, the MIC would have no ability to make sales.
Makes sense, and I do recall the Americans destroying some of their equipment, notably helicopters. I don't think there's much chance of the US making inroads in Tajikistan though, or anywhere in Central Asia at this point. The geography dictates against it, but also money to build the New Silk Road is starting to arrive, and employment and investment opportunities along with it. Hard to stir up discontent when conditions are improving.
Globalresearch.ca was started two days prior to the mother of all false flags, nine eleven , and has been the must check cite since, in many languages....
A favorite movie back when I was a neocon. The movie seemed to neglect the part where America initially stirred the pot. The HuffPo article linked in my article lays it out way better than I could!
My point in the article is just to add more context.
What I'm observing is that prior to 1979, the USA had no interest whatsoever in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had several uprisings and revolutions prior to 79. Those were mostly their own affair, and America didn't care. In 79, the latest revolution left pro-Soviet Afghans in charge.
My opinion is that America started caring in 79 because they had a chance to bleed out the Soviets is all. Our then newfound concern was sold as helping the people and bringing peace, but America never felt the need to help them before. For that matter, legitimate concern and help rarely needs to be covert.
America basically used Afghans to kills Soviets, then bailed out. It feels like a theme.
"In 79, the latest revolution left pro-Soviet Afghans in charge."
And along with them came improvements in health care, education, housing, critical infrastructure and most importantly, women's rights. This part of the narrative gets left out, as does the fact the USSR was requested to help, so '"Soviet Invasion" is just another bit of western propaganda. Had the USA kept out, Afghanistan today would probably look a lot like Tajikistan, which is in far better shape politically and culturally.
I wonder if the equipment the USA abandoned when they left Afghanistan was no accident? Tajikistan shares a border, and they're very nervous about Islamic fundamentalists. It's actually illegal to sell hijab in TJ, and they've even gone so far as to round up men and shave their beards, which is going too far IMO, but it shows how serious they are. Russia and TJ jointly patrol that border, so my guess is if you leave the Taliban a lot of hardware, it makes that area a potential problem and you have to tie up more troops defending it. Just a theory of course.
That gear was likely abandoned because of math.
1. All that gear left behind had negative value in that each item recovered represented a future lost sale for Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics...
2. Each item left behind ensured a future sale of the weapon required to counter it later.
3. When it's Tajikistan turn for American 'help', the MIC will need to be fed again. Were the equipment already in place, the MIC would have no ability to make sales.
Makes sense, and I do recall the Americans destroying some of their equipment, notably helicopters. I don't think there's much chance of the US making inroads in Tajikistan though, or anywhere in Central Asia at this point. The geography dictates against it, but also money to build the New Silk Road is starting to arrive, and employment and investment opportunities along with it. Hard to stir up discontent when conditions are improving.
These are the people we abandoned.
A patriotic video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM6g3QYvqCk
social commentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyB3JziEH40
before a live audience in Tajikistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfdTy7KK6PM
Kabul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfK4ndtVEOQ
Our Soldier Friends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0tEh224Abo
Globalresearch.ca was started two days prior to the mother of all false flags, nine eleven , and has been the must check cite since, in many languages....
I pulled that article from Globalresearch for now. It was an impulse choice to include it.
That is critical history. I didn't read the article itself, but the subject is near common knowledge....
That was the subject of the movie Charlie Wilson’s War with Tom Hanks & Julia Roberts
A favorite movie back when I was a neocon. The movie seemed to neglect the part where America initially stirred the pot. The HuffPo article linked in my article lays it out way better than I could!
Ha ha ha that's funny