US and Taliban now working together [Archive]

View Full Version : US and Taliban now working together

WillBrink

03-10-13, 09:38

Says Karzai :rolleyes:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday accused the Taliban and the U.S. of working in concert to convince Afghans that violence will worsen if most foreign troops leave — an allegation the top American commander in Afghanistan rejected as "categorically false."

Karzai said two suicide bombings that killed 19 people on Saturday — one outside the Afghan Defense Ministry and the other near a police checkpoint in eastern Khost province — show the insurgent group is conducting attacks to help show that international forces will still be needed to keep the peace after their current combat mission ends in 2014. Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks during an event commemorating International Women's Day in Kabul today.

"The explosions in Kabul and Khost yesterday showed that they are at the service of America and at the service of this phrase: 2014. They are trying to frighten us into thinking that if the foreigners are not in Afghanistan, we would be facing these sorts of incidents," he said during a nationally televised speech about the state of Afghan women.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/foreign_president_karzai_accuses_g2DBkkEKTstexm4JO6T0pM

Bolt_Overide

03-10-13, 09:55

We always knew he was as self serving political whore, adding batshit crazy to that apparantly.

chuckman

03-10-13, 09:58

His kingdom, always held together with duct tape and bubble gum, is imploding and he is in real trouble when the US leaves. He is playing both sides against the middle.

WillBrink

03-10-13, 10:41

His kingdom, always held together with duct tape and bubble gum, is imploding and he is in real trouble when the US leaves. He is playing both sides against the middle.

And blaming your problems on the one power that got you there and currently making it possible for you to remain there, always a winning long term strategy.

J8127

03-10-13, 11:06

I really couldn't give any less of a **** anymore. End the goddamn thing already.

MountainRaven

03-10-13, 12:19

And blaming your problems on the one power that got you there and currently making it possible for you to remain there, always a winning long term strategy.

It's what he does.

The simple fact is that no leader of Afghanistan, propped up by outside forces, has long survived their departure. I doubt Karzai is stupid enough to not realize that he is and will be the face of US and NATO unpopularity once we leave. So he has to try and look like he's in charge, or a victim of the US/NATO, depending on the audience.

I'm wondering why it is that we supported him, since he was the one who convinced our government to support the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in the first place.

SOWT

03-10-13, 12:41

It's what he does.

The simple fact is that no leader of Afghanistan, propped up by outside forces, has long survived their departure. I doubt Karzai is stupid enough to not realize that he is and will be the face of US and NATO unpopularity once we leave. So he has to try and look like he's in charge, or a victim of the US/NATO, depending on the audience.

I'm wondering why it is that we supported him, since he was the one who convinced our government to support the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in the first place.

He was all that was left after Massood (sp?) died.

The Western Nations should let him know he won't be welcome after we leave.

seb5

03-10-13, 12:41

**** him, he pisses on all of our service personnels sacrifices every chance he gets. Remind me why we're still there? Oh yea, to nation build what cannot and never has been out of the stone age and doesn't want to be. It pisses me off as I'm getting ready to deploy soon to think that it is for nothing but a few pieces of salad, tax free dollars and the people I serve with. That goat ****er doesn't deserve 1 American life let alone thousands.

Mjolnir

03-10-13, 16:13

Well, we are materially supporting the Wahabbists in Syria. We supported them in Libya and some of those evil rats are saying that they are leaving Syria for Mali.

Not WHOLLY unbelievable; just coming from a "rat".

VooDoo6Actual

03-10-13, 16:16

Doing the D0S boogie scuffle...

Arctic1

03-10-13, 16:43

since he was the one who convinced our government to support the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in the first place.

When did the US Government support the Taliban against the Northern Alliance?

When did Karzai support the Taliban?

As far as I know, Karzai first accepted the Taliban as a legitimate government, as he hoped they would stop the violence in Afghanistan at that time. He refused an offer to be an ambassador for the Taliban, as he suspected that the ISI were using them. He lived in Pakistan as an Afghan refugee. After his father was killed, most likely by Taliban assassins, he worked closely with the Northern Alliance led by Massoud.

He previously had supported the mujahedeen against the Soviets.

As far as his statements and actions, it is what it is. Afghan social and cultural dynamics are so far removed from what we in the western world are used to, it's not really worth it being upset about it.

For you guys deploying or deployed, just stay safe, bring your guys home and see this last stretch through. If you ask me, shit should have ended in 2002, after SOF and OGA's did their thing. The Afghans could have sorted it out themselves.

I seriously believe that after NATO has withdrawn in 2014, the usual suspects will emerge (Dostum, Ismail Khan, Atta, Hekmatyar, Haqqani, Omar and so forth) and they will either slug it out, or divide up the country.

There is no notion of Afghanistan for most people who live there. The Pashtuns have their tribes, the rest are more ethnicity oriented (Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen, Hazara and so forth). Better let them handle it, than insist on them conforming to some lines drawn on a map by western nations.

MountainRaven

03-10-13, 17:41

When did the US Government support the Taliban against the Northern Alliance?

When did Karzai support the Taliban?

Karzai and, IIRC, his brother were viewed as the 'go-to' people for Afghanistan by the US government in the mid-to-late 90s (and, of course, the early 2000s).

Their advice was to embargo the Northern Alliance and support the Taliban. The US did, briefly, supply the Taliban with money to suppress opium production. And until 9/11, the US refused to support the Northern Alliance.

As far as I know, Karzai first accepted the Taliban as a legitimate government, as he hoped they would stop the violence in Afghanistan at that time. He refused an offer to be an ambassador for the Taliban, as he suspected that the ISI were using them. He lived in Pakistan as an Afghan refugee. After his father was killed, most likely by Taliban assassins, he worked closely with the Northern Alliance led by Massoud.

Yes. After his father was murdered.

He previously had supported the mujahedeen against the Soviets.

I don't think there's a single mover-and-shaker in Afghanistan who was born before the mid-70s who did not support the mujahedeen. At least not one that is still alive.

I fully agree that I Afghanistan is likely to fall apart as soon as we leave. Hopefully we'll be able to keep the Taliban or any other ISI-associated organization from controlling Afghanistan (or its remnant states).

T2C

03-10-13, 17:45

If it were not for U.S. forces, Hamid Karzai would be just another goat herder. I hope that the work that U.S. forces have done in Afghanistan has not been for naught.

SteyrAUG

03-10-13, 18:07

If it were not for U.S. forces, Hamid Karzai would be just another goat herder. I hope that the work that U.S. forces have done in Afghanistan has not been for naught.

Some countries you simply cannot fix. And really that isn't our job.

We killed some Class A bad guys, time to call it a day and come home.

LowSpeed_HighDrag

03-10-13, 18:10

Some countries you simply cannot fix. And really that isn't our job.

We killed some Class A bad guys, time to call it a day and come home.

Amen. Call me a softie, but I grow weary of the War on Terror.

T2C

03-10-13, 18:14

Some countries you simply cannot fix. And really that isn't our job.

We killed some Class A bad guys, time to call it a day and come home.

If someone attracts our interest by attacking U.S. citizens, we should find them and kill them. Once our mission is accomplished, we should pack our shit and head home. Democracy building in a country steeped in 2,000 years of tradition is an exercise in futility.

RogerinTPA

03-10-13, 18:46

Golden Parachutes...Karzi is reportedly to have a million dollar flat in London. After seeing all those high end yachts in front of the hotel I stayed in numerous times in Dubai, flying Afghan flags, it's certain that he and several warlords who cooperated with the US, won't be sticking around for too long after we pull out of AFG.

Arctic1

03-10-13, 18:51

Honu

03-10-13, 19:32

Sounds like he has the same guy who wrote Baghdad bobs briefings writing his now :)
Pure crazy crap that sounds good for his image but is crazy :)

Says Karzai :rolleyes:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday accused the Taliban and the U.S. of working in concert to convince Afghans that violence will worsen if most foreign troops leave — an allegation the top American commander in Afghanistan rejected as "categorically false."

Karzai said two suicide bombings that killed 19 people on Saturday — one outside the Afghan Defense Ministry and the other near a police checkpoint in eastern Khost province — show the insurgent group is conducting attacks to help show that international forces will still be needed to keep the peace after their current combat mission ends in 2014. Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks during an event commemorating International Women's Day in Kabul today.

"The explosions in Kabul and Khost yesterday showed that they are at the service of America and at the service of this phrase: 2014. They are trying to frighten us into thinking that if the foreigners are not in Afghanistan, we would be facing these sorts of incidents," he said during a nationally televised speech about the state of Afghan women.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/foreign_president_karzai_accuses_g2DBkkEKTstexm4JO6T0pM

Peshawar

03-10-13, 22:44

Better let them handle it, than insist on them conforming to some lines drawn on a map by western nations.

Very Lawrence of Arabia. :D

Magic_Salad0892

03-11-13, 03:19

I thought this had something to do with the US supporting armed Taliban supported revolutions in Egypt, and Lybia, or whatever?

Also, I was under the impression that at the time, Karzai was the best we had to put into power, and the tribal leaders themselves recommended him, because he was Pashtun ethnically. He may have been self serving, but I think we're not the only ones who helped him get there.

Like Arctic said above, after we bail, the usual players/warlords will surface, and turn it into a shithole again.

Iraqgunz

03-11-13, 03:59

We need to pull out of there now, not later and leave the country as is. There is no need in wasting more American/Allied lives and money.

Magic_Salad0892

03-11-13, 04:23

We need to pull out of there now, not later and leave the country as is. There is no need in wasting more American/Allied lives and money.

Do you think that Al Qaeda would try another 9/11 style attack if we pulled out of Afghanistan?

Iraqgunz

03-11-13, 04:31

AQ isn't the issue in A'stan, it's the Taliban and the tribalism/warlords. AQ has much better and closer places to operate out of now.

Part of the bigger issue is that we cannot control Pakistan and they are a major factor to the shit that happens.

Do you think that Al Qaeda would try another 9/11 style attack if we pulled out of Afghanistan?

Arctic1

03-11-13, 04:40

I don't think islamist extremist terrorism as a threat is dependent on wether or not NATO/US forces are deployed to different countries/regions.

That threat will always be there. Some of these guys see the west/the US as everything that is wrong with the world, according to their views and perception.

Personally I belive that the "War on Terror" is best fought with intelligence and black SOF missions ala the mission that killed bin Laden....without the publicity part, of course.

The problem with being in Afghanistan, and previously Iraq is that it was just another battlefield for anti-west/anti-US muslim extremists to go fight. It is nothing new, as it happened in the Balkans as well.

The initial mission in Afghanistan was:

-Find and kill/capture OBL
-Eliminate AQ bases + route AQ/Foreign Fighters
-Uproot Taliban IOT make it impossible for terrorists to use areas Afghanistan as training camps

Then somewhere along the way the good idea fairy roared it's ugly head and we comitted to providing security assistance to the interim government, as well as nation building (training security forces, rebuilding of infrastructure etc).

The problem is that there will always be countries whose governments turn a blind eye to this kind of activity from terrorist organisations; Sudan, Somalia for example. Maybe even nations in South America is a possible assembly area for terrorists wanting to strike against the US.

If US forces/NATO forces pulling out of Afghanistan will lead to another 9/11 attack? Hard to say. I think the terrorists are training and organzing for something of that magnitude, but I think it will be a lot more difficult to carry out, as the world is a different place than it was pre 9/11. I think budget cuts and mindset changes with the policy makers are more likely to add to the risk, than the act of pulling out and ceasing military activity in Afghanistan.

Magic_Salad0892

03-11-13, 04:59

AQ isn't the issue in A'stan, it's the Taliban and the tribalism/warlords. AQ has much better and closer places to operate out of now.

Part of the bigger issue is that we cannot control Pakistan and they are a major factor to the shit that happens.

I'm aware of Pakistan being an issue. But I think that once we leave the country, there won't be anything stopping the Taliban from retaking the country, and providing AQ with training camps again. Then we'll have fought for 10+ years for nothing.

Though I think the war should've been fought with smaller SF teams, and airstrikes, like in the beginning. But then again, I have no experience, and limited view to speak from.

And when you say AQ has better places to operate from, where are you talking about?

J-Dub

03-11-13, 10:42

glocktogo

03-12-13, 16:26

I just assumed that due to the sequestration, someone in DoS forgot to pay him his weekly "protection money". :rolleyes:

Mjolnir

03-12-13, 21:03

Mjolnir

03-12-13, 21:05

CarlosDJackal

03-12-13, 21:28

We really should pull all the support we give to Karzai's security detail ASAP. If that doesn't self-correct the issue, nothing will.

CarlosDJackal

03-12-13, 21:30

Do you think that Al Qaeda would try another 9/11 style attack if we pulled out of Afghanistan?

Like that really matters. If AQ doesn't try it, some other group(s) will regardless of whether or not we leave A-stan.

Iraqgunz

03-12-13, 21:40

Newsflash- The U.S probably won't have anything to do with the exploiting of their minerals especially since the Chinese are closer and have already been active in the country.

Also, our gov't agents have no plans to leave.

Search "TAPI" when y'all got the time.

Also check the profit margin of controlling the opium trade.

Then look up the mineral wealth in that land.

Now ask yourself could you profit as much if you didn't have a presence there?

Thought not.

Belmont31R

03-12-13, 22:05

If someone attracts our interest by attacking U.S. citizens, we should find them and kill them. Once our mission is accomplished, we should pack our shit and head home. Democracy building in a country steeped in 2,000 years of tradition is an exercise in futility.

The Taliban were in Pakistan and Afghanistan prior to 9/11. What they were was allegedly half welcoming half worried about AQ being there. They are not one in the same. AQ left Afg pretty quickly after 9/11. Since then we have been fighting people who never attacked us and don't have the means to.

We should have left there about 2004/2005.

Belmont31R

03-12-13, 22:07

Iraqgunz

03-12-13, 22:21

Great point. That's exactly correct.

The Taliban were in Pakistan and Afghanistan prior to 9/11. What they were was allegedly half welcoming half worried about AQ being there. They are not one in the same. AQ left Afg pretty quickly after 9/11. Since then we have been fighting people who never attacked us and don't have the means to.

We should have left there about 2004/2005.

Arctic1

03-13-13, 07:46

NEWS FLASH.....

We've been working with Al Qaeda for a while now (well financially supporting them since their inception), why wouldnt we be working with the Taliban???

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doxgN-V5Fg

Newsflash.....the situation in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion; the mujahedeen and US aid, is a bit more complex than how Clinton portrays it.

First, AQ had nothing to do with the US support given to the mujahedeen during the Soviet invasion, as it was stood up near the end of the Soviet presence. The only dodgy player who received support from the US was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, founder of HIG.

Second, the Afghan mujahedeen did not like or support the Arab mujahedeen, who were the ones OBL fought with and supported. OBL had his own operation going, Maktab al-Khidamat, which was as stated previously to fund, equip and train foreign muslim fighters. Hekmatyar allegedly had dealings with OBL during the early 90's.

Third, OBLs ideology was already present among islamic extremists, way before OBL was a known entity. The whole "Global Jihad" ideology is the creation of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of AQ, previously of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

For OBL, the turning point for him regarding the US was during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when King Fahd, the Saudi Monarch, turned down his offer to help protect Saudi Arabia from Iraqi forces, instead choosing to invite US forces.

So, to claim that the US government supported AQ isn't exactly accurate. Was there money siphoned off towards OBLs efforts through ISIs handling of US support? Who knows.

Point is, this is not a black and white issue, far from it. Were there second and third order effects of the US aid? Possibly. To sit here now making statements in hindsight, 30 years after the fact in a world with a totally different political climate, is not productive.

T2C

03-13-13, 07:50

Pull out and leave things the way they are. If someone gives us cause, we target them and their support system then leave.

Unless there is a vast amount of oil for the taking, I see no reason to stay.

Peshawar

03-13-13, 14:38

Apparently there's a lot of cheap heroin around LA these days. Lots of horror stories about kids getting addicted because it's cheap, chic, and available. Heard it's a scourge in Russia now too. Wonder where it's coming from....

Arctic1

03-13-13, 15:54

VooDoo6Actual

03-13-13, 16:17

Also, our gov't agents have no plans to leave.

Search "TAPI" when y'all got the time.

Also check the profit margin of controlling the opium trade.

Then look up the mineral wealth in that land.

Now ask yourself could you profit as much if you didn't have a presence there?

Thought not.

Said it here many times myself but it got suppressed by people here not willing to READ what is posted or do the research & verify the FACTS.

You are spot on.

#1
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=117330

DOD, U.S. Agencies Help Afghanistan Exploit Mineral Wealth

By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 30, 2012 – Officials from the Defense Department and the U.S. Geological Survey gathered this month at Afghanistan’s U.S. Embassy to unveil what the director of a DOD task force called a “treasure map” of the nation’s mineral resources.
At the event, James Bullion of the Defense Department’s Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, or TFBSO, shared the podium with USGS Director Marcia McNutt, who described a new remote-sensing technology that has made it possible, for the first time, she said, to map more than 70 percent of the country’s surface and identify potential high-value deposits of copper, gold, iron, and other minerals.
DOD officials and USGS scientists work as partners in this initiative with the Afghanistan government and scientists and engineers from the Afghan Ministry of Mines and the Afghan Geological Survey.
“The task force is a Defense Department organization charged to help spur and grow the private-sector economy in Afghanistan, … and clearly, the mineral and oil and gas extractive areas are critical to that effort,” Bullion said.
Since 2009, the DOD task force has funded work there by USGS, including the effort to operate, with help from NASA, an airborne instrument called a hyperspectral imager to map surface indicators of natural resources below Afghanistan’s rugged mountainous terrain.
“The work that the U.S. Geological Survey has done has been critical to the whole process,” Bullion said. “In essence, what they’ve done is built a treasure map for Afghanistan, which is full of these hidden mineral and oil and gas treasures.”
Scientists from USGS began working in Afghanistan in 2004, when the agency was asked to help rebuild the nation’s natural resource sector, McNutt said. The geological data USGS scientists found was 50 to 75 years old, originating from the late 1960s when a Soviet mission for about 10 years helped the Afghan government with geological mapping.
From August to October 2007, NASA contributed its mid-wing, long-range WB-57 aircraft to fly the USGS hyperspectral instrument over Afghanistan, mapping more than 70 percent of the country. In 2009, USGS and the DOD task force became partners and worked closely, Bullion said, to help to get the hyperspectral data into a format that mining companies could use to evaluate opportunities in the mineral sector.
“Hyperspectral data uses the reflectance of light and uses the fact that different minerals reflect light in different wavelength bands,” McNutt explained. “Every mineral has its own signature or fingerprint.”
Hyperspectral imaging characterizes minerals only on the surface of the Earth, not underground where the minerals are mined. The technology wouldn’t work well in countries where forests, grasses and soil cover the ground, but it’s perfect for Afghanistan. Over 50 million years, the slow-motion collision of Iran and Eurasian tectonic plates beneath Afghanistan formed rugged, rocky mountains out of what used to be mineral-laden subsurface rock.
The hyperspectral instrument “can be used in a place where there’s no vegetative cover, and Afghanistan happens to have almost no vegetation and it is resource-laden,” McNutt explained. “And because of plate tectonic properties, … it has been tectonically uplifted and tectonically unroofed to reveal at the surface the mother lode of resources.”
Over 43 days and 23 flights, USGS flew nearly 23,000 miles, collecting data that covered 170,000 square miles.
When compared with conventional ground mapping, McNutt added, hyperspectral technology has accelerated by decades the ability to identify the most promising areas for Afghan economic development.
In December, supported by the DOD task force, officials from Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines opened tender processes, or auctions, for exploration and later exploitation of four project areas in the country.
The Badakhshan gold project is in Badakhshan province, the Zarkashan copper and gold project is in Ghazni province, the Balkhab copper project spans Sar-I-Pul and Balkh provinces, and the Shaida copper project is in Herat province.
Bids for the Balkhab project were opened July 24, and a preferred bidder will be announced when the evaluations are complete, ministry officials said in a statement.
At the Afghan embassy event, a USGS official characterized the value of Afghanistan’s mineral and other deposits.
“We have identified somewhere between 10 and 12 world-class copper, gold, iron ore [and] rare earth deposits that no one knew were there,” Jack Medlin, regional specialist for the Asia-Pacific region in the USGS international programs office, told the audience.
“In our 2007 publication, we gave an estimate of undiscovered mineral resources for the country, and … you can add up the tonnages of copper, lead, gold, iron, silver and so forth. … But this country has many more world-class mineral deposits than most countries in the world, if not more than any country,” he said.
That doesn’t mean it will be easy to turn these resources into national income, Medlin told American Forces Press Service.
Once a company wins a bid for an Afghan site, it will gather all information about the site, including the hyperspectral data and any geologic, geochemical and geophysical information, he said. It will also send its own geologists to the site to do detailed mapping and arrange for detailed airborne gravity and magnetic studies, Medlin said, which gives the company a subsurface three-dimensional picture of the ore deposit.
The company checks the absolute grade and tonnage of the ore deposit by drilling through the ore body, collecting a rock core and sending it to a chemical laboratory for analysis. If the results are positive, he added, the company creates a mine plan and determines the mining method.
“You’re talking about a capital investment of billions of dollars up front before you’ve even mined a pound of ore,” Medlin said. “It’s the reason companies want well-defined mining laws … and they want all the legal and regulatory requirements spelled out.”
In the Afghan mining brochure, Minister of Mines Wahidulla Shahrani describes major road and rail development and ongoing work on electric transmission lines, a favorable legal and fiscal regime, stable mineral laws and regulations, and physical security for working mines.
A mine protection unit has 1,500 security personnel at the Aynak copper mine in Logar province, according to the Ministry of Mines, and the Afghan government plans to increase the number of personnel to 7,000 for future mining projects.
At the embassy event, Afghanistan’s Ambassador to the United States Eklil Hakimi thanked DOD and the USGS for their help with the mining enterprise and discussed the potential economic benefits.
“The estimated direct revenue to be generated by royalties and taxes from the extractive industries could reach up to $1.5 billion by 2016 and exceed $3.7 billion by 2026,” Hakimi said, “and will become a major source of employment, with 165,000 jobs anticipated by 2016 and up to half a million by 2026.
“As we recently stressed at the Tokyo Conference [on Afghanistan in July],” he continued, “a peaceful future for Afghanistan rests in development and a sustainable economy, one that’s not dependent on international assistance and can provide jobs for the people.”
In response to a question from the audience, McNutt said the Afghans are eager to embrace modern geophysical techniques and technology and to be responsible for their own success.
“The word that I hear is [the Afghans] want to do this themselves,” the USGS director added. “They … are eager to take leadership and ownership of these projects and learn how to do it because they’re excited about rebuilding.”

#2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era.
Go to the Blog »
Multimedia

Graphic
Minerals in Afghanistan
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (1457) »
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”

Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.

In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.

Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.

The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”

#3
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/04/afghanistan-s-mineral-wealth-could-be-a-bonanza-or-lead-to-disaster.html

Afghanistan’s Mineral Wealth Could Be a Bonanza—or Lead to Disaster
Jul 4, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Scientists have discovered a treasure trove of coal, natural gas, oil, and other mineral wealth under Afghanistan’s dusty earth. It could be just what the battered nation needs as Western donors leave—but exploiting it could lead to economic and environmental disaster.

Before Afghanistan exploded into the headlines in 2001, average Americans barely knew that such a country even existed. Its violent discovery was followed by an enormous wave of good will and lots of money, as the U.S., other Western governments, and countless private citizens strove to assist this long-suffering nation, building schools and clinics, encouraging the downtrodden women, erasing the dark traces of Taliban oppression, and working to lift Afghanistan into a brighter present.

But after more than 10 aggravating, exorbitantly expensive and violent years, the world has pretty much had it with Afghanistan. Now, the pressing desire is to cobble together some sort of status quo that will allow everyone to get out as expeditiously as possible. Afghan security forces are nearly ready to replace the departing foreign troops. The remaining challenge is financial. The Afghan government is almost totally funded by the subsidies of donor governments, a situation that clearly is unsustainable. The U.S. government believes it has found the solution.

Working from data generated by the Russians during their own unhappy tenure in this country, the U.S. Geological Survey was thrilled to announce that below the rocks and dust of Afghanistan lies an almost unbelievable trove of treasure, mineral wealth in the unimaginable billions. Coal. Natural gas. Oil. Copper. Not to mention rare elements such as lanthanum, cerium, and neodymium, essential to modern technology and commanding high prices. Mining was going to be the silver bullet, and it needed to commence immediately to start the flow of revenue into Kabul’s soon-to-be-empty coffers. Afghanistan, the new Saudi Arabia, the next Dubai, an Aladdin’s treasure spilling forth from its sparse terrain? There is an old saying that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Well, it is in fact true that the unique geology of Afghanistan has endowed the country with vast mineral deposits. It is also true that these hold great promise. But they don’t amount to a silver bullet—and if forced to serve as such, there is a serious risk that this bullet will go astray.

At a high-level expert meeting convened by ARCH (the Alliance for the Restoration of Cultural Heritage) and the Central Asia Caucasus Institute at SAIS/Johns Hopkins, mining engineers and geologists warned that unless extreme care and caution are exercised in the implementation of its mining, Afghanistan could face an environmental disaster on a scale that would vastly overstrain the abilities of its government to contain. This on top of the other significant risk, namely that in light of its poverty, underdevelopment, continuing instability, and weak rule of law, its mineral wealth could easily turn into a mineral curse.

An Afghan coal miner holds a handful of coal at the Karkar mine in Karkar, Afghanistan. (Paula Bronstein / Getty Images)

This has happened time and again to countries in comparable political circumstances, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But even were Afghanistan miraculously able to suddenly end its huge and endemic corruption, subdue its regional warlords, extend the ability of the central government to control events and collect revenue from far-flung provinces and defeat the Taliban—which at the moment still holds sway over many of the areas richest in the above-named minerals—the environmental risks still remain, and they are considerable.

Case in point, the ancient Buddhist ruins of Mes Aynak, which was the specific focus of the expert group’s deliberations. Located 20 kilometers outside Kabul, a city densely inhabited by 3.5 million people, this is the site of an incipient major copper-mining project. One of the world’s largest copper deposits is fatefully intertwined with this major heritage site, a sprawling urban complex encompassing several Buddhist monasteries, fortresses, and fortifications, and commercial and residential areas, with lower strata that may go back as far as the Bronze Age and before.

In 2009, in its rush to riches, the Afghan government gave a Chinese mining company (MCC) the contract, and for terms that are causing pained shudders to those in the know. The inexperienced Afghan ministry may have thought $800 million to be a spectacular lot of money—and the alleged $30 million bribe to the then minister of mines may have played a part—but at 50 or 60 years’ worth of multibillion-dollar annual exploitation of this enormous deposit, it puts the purchase of Manhattan for a fistful of shiny beads into the shade, as great—or bad—deals go.

That, however, is not the worst of it. The worst of it is that a copper mine, absent scrupulous management and oversight, can become a liability of catastrophic proportions. Looking at Afghanistan’s past four decades, we may think that things can hardly get any worse. But yes, they can. Mes Aynak sits atop the two principal aquifers not only for Kabul, but for a vast region extending into neighboring Pakistan. Improper mining could kill the Kabul River and poison the aquifer for generations to come. It could create, instead of wealth, what experts term a “Superfund Site”—a failed site whose cleanup is so costly and so complicated that the mining company departs in disgrace while the national government (and the term assumes a functioning and funded Western national government, not an utterly bankrupt one) is left to deal with the toxic disaster.

There's a metric shitload of other supporting documentation of the facts. Seems to be more than adequate data posted here for those whom read to figure it out. Funny others will still argue & deny the facts of it all.

go figure...

Peshawar

03-13-13, 16:27

The opium issue is also very complex. It is easy to sit here in the western world with our good jobs, well fed families, an open market, an abundance of products to choose from and claim that the opium in Afghanistan should be eradicated.

The problem is that it just isn't that easy. I mean, sure, ISAF/ANSF with DEA support could probably do it, but it would **** up Afghanistan beyond anything we have seen so far.

Poppy is the ONLY livelyhood for these poppy farmers. It is the only marketable product that ensures a minimal standard of living for themselves and their families. There are very few other crops that can thrive in many of the harsh areas of Afghanistan; poppy does. And even if they started growing something else, there is no way in hell they would be able to make a living on it.

Stopping the poppy cultivation would probably dent the economy of the Taliban, but would, like I said, **** up the country even worse than what it is now.

If an undertaking like that is ever to take place, there needs to be a proper plan implemented to ensure that poppy farmers will still be able to provide for their families.

You would also have to deal with the warlords running the opium trade, potentially resulting in more loss of life.

Well, isn't that just the global rub these days? I mean, to generate this type of reality based understanding for why the Afghanis need to grow poppy might lead us to do the same for the idea of our domestic demand for said poppy. Right? If we're going to put on our "Mr. Globally Aware Sensitive Guy" hats, let's take a look in the mirror while we're feeling sorry for the Taliban farmers. We have a drug problem in the US, one that is by and large filled by shitheads in other countries that make money from our addicts (citizens). The ones not addicted to commercially made pharmaceuticals that is. Hint, there's likely a lot of oxycontin-addicted people in YOUR town right now. Maybe they get it from CVS, and maybe they get it from shitbird X. Regardless, perhaps we should admit that we have this demand problem, decriminalize drugs and tax the hell out of their sale, use the profits to create effective treatment centers, and stop keeping our heads in the godddamn sand. People are going to use drugs. Should the profits go to buy PKM's and AK103's for terrorists, or should it stay in the US to keep your neighbor's kid going to NA meetings? I think that it's time for us to choose. I think it's hard for us to stay in the denial zone domestically while needing a "nuanced" and "realistic" foreign policy. Can we handle the truth? I dunno. But I'm not sure we can continue to afford to think both ways about it.

Iraqgunz

03-13-13, 16:27

Old article to begin with. Country is still unstable and the work is moving slowly. In addition China (which doesn't care about it's workers- i.e. they are expendable is already on scene and from what I know they are looked at in a much different light than the "infidels".

VooDoo6Actual

03-13-13, 16:54

Feb.5th 2013 w/ some additional facts & points amending 2010 article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769

As has been discussed numerous times it's about geo-politics & geo-resources but some still grapple w/ the agenda.

Arctic1

03-13-13, 18:10

Well, isn't that just the global rub these days? I mean, to generate this type of reality based understanding for why the Afghanis need to grow poppy might lead us to do the same for the idea of our domestic demand for said poppy. Right? If we're going to put on our "Mr. Globally Aware Sensitive Guy" hats, let's take a look in the mirror while we're feeling sorry for the Taliban farmers. We have a drug problem in the US, one that is by and large filled by shitheads in other countries that make money from our addicts (citizens). The ones not addicted to commercially made pharmaceuticals that is. Hint, there's likely a lot of oxycontin-addicted people in YOUR town right now. Maybe they get it from CVS, and maybe they get it from shitbird X. Regardless, perhaps we should admit that we have this demand problem, decriminalize drugs and tax the hell out of their sale, use the profits to create effective treatment centers, and stop keeping our heads in the godddamn sand. People are going to use drugs. Should the profits go to buy PKM's and AK103's for terrorists, or should it stay in the US to keep your neighbor's kid going to NA meetings? I think that it's time for us to choose. I think it's hard for us to stay in the denial zone domestically while needing a "nuanced" and "realistic" foreign policy. Can we handle the truth? I dunno. But I'm not sure we can continue to afford to think both ways about it.

Well, for me it is pretty simple. Most people who become addicted to heroin had a choice. Afghan farmers don't really have a choice. And calling them "Taliban farmers" is just plain ignorant.

I am not advocating putting on a "Mr. Globally Sensitive Guy" hat. Trying to put things in perspective. It is not a black and white solution to the issue. And having seen first hand how these people live, it is not difficult to understand their choice.

Also, the drug problem is not going to go away by reducing the amount of heroin produced in Afghanistan. Prices will go up as demand increases and supply is reduced. There are, however, many underlying social issues in our OWN countries that lead to people turning to drugs. Shit, just think about how many addicts are created by doctors every year? At least in my country. Doctors who uncritically prescribe powerful painkillers to patients actively seeking them out to get their fix. And drug issues go way further than the visible addicts, your stereotypical junkie.

I don't know the correct strategy to use to fight the drug problem, but it's not an easy task.

Cagemonkey

03-13-13, 18:22

Peshawar

03-13-13, 18:27

Well, for me it is pretty simple. Most people who become addicted to heroin had a choice. Afghan farmers don't really have a choice. And calling them "Taliban farmers" is just plain ignorant.

Don't know why you need to insult me for stating facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/taliban-poppy-war-targets-tractors-and-police.html?_r=0

Arctic1

03-13-13, 18:53

First, I did not say that you are ignorant, I said the statement was ignorant. It is not facts, it is oversimplification of the issue.

Second, these people are pretty pragmatic. When faced with the threat of losing your livelyhood, because the government is eradicating your income, is this result unexpected:

The program has been met with hostility by many local residents who say they are reduced to poverty without the income from the poppy crop.

I can almost guarantee that most of these farmers care nothing for the ideologies or the political leanings of the Taliban movement. They simply want to provide for their families, and they choose the easy fix. Doesn't mean they are Taliban.

I would prefer it if these farmers didn't accept Taliban protection, but that is the name of the game in that AO. Allegiances changes back and forth, loyalty is based on money and protection (Taliban/ISAF/ANSF, makes no difference). If ISAF/ANSF were the ones providing security, providing alternate crops that generated the same income as poppy, then these guys would be pro ISAF/ANSF.

Peshawar

03-13-13, 19:06

First, I did not say that you are ignorant, I said the statement was ignorant. It is not facts, it is oversimplification of the issue.

No. My statement was NOT ignorant. I just backed it up with an article that refutes your assertion pretty clearly. What you're attempting to do is overcomplicate the issue for your own intellectual vanity. Don't call me out unless you're gonna back it up with some facts, dude.

Just because people only like one aspect of what a political party does for them does not make them non-members of that party. Can you imagine your philosophy transposed onto American politics? "Oh, they're not really Democrats. They just vote for the guy who gives them the free stuff." Whatever.

Arctic1

03-13-13, 19:29

One article. That really is empirical evidence for your statement.

Overcomplicate the issue for my own intellectual vanity? Really?

Dude, I spent 6 months living with Afghan soldiers, training them and going on operations with them. Prior to deploying I spent 9 months preparing for that deployment, to include Afghan history, learning about Afghan cultural and societal dynamics, geographical variations in culture, Afghan demographics, ethnicity relations and so forth.

I am not saying I am an expert, but I have a pretty good grasp of how things are.

Have you ever been to Afghanistan?

Peshawar

03-13-13, 19:37

MountainRaven

03-13-13, 21:45

@fjallhrafn:

I wouldn't call the eradication reward "supporting the Taliban". It was a one time fee paid by the Bush administration to Mullah Omar for his war on drugs. Mullah Omar was collaborating with the UN on the issue.

As far as Karzai proposing an embargo of the NA and recommending supporting the TB, refusing to support the NA, do you have any sources for that?

The Northern Alliance was stood up late 1996, and by mid 1999 Karzai was working with them. Prior to that he was in Pakistan, working against the Taliban by trying to reinstating the former king.

I just find it strange that the US goverment would support the Taliban, but not the NA.

From Tamim Ansary's Games without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan, Chapter 25 'Taliban versus Mujahideen', referencing the proposed construction of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan in the 1990s:
"Unocal brought heavy artillery to the competition with Bridas. They had friends in the Republican Party, including power brokers such as Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig, as well as Ronald Reagan's erstwhile Afghan advisor Zalmay Khalizad. Khalizad, in turn, had an Afghan associate by the name of Hamid Karzai. Khalazid and Karzai, in concert with their neoconservative allies in Washington, DC, argued that the Taliban deserved US support because they could be a stabilizing force. Khalizad predicted that the Taliban would develop into a regime much like that of Saudi Arabia, a refreshing contrast to those madmen in Iran. While Bridas was busy negotiating with the Mujahideen, Unocal put its trust in the Taliban."

Two paragraphs later:

"The United States did not create the Taliban or fund them directly, as some critics later charged. They only kept funding their ally Pakistan, ignoring the fact that Pakistan was nurturing the Taliban. The United States also took Pakistan's advice to stop supporting Massoud and his allies. In fact, the United States tried to ensure that no aid of any kind reached Massoud from any Western source."

(Emphasis mine, in both paragraphs.)

I was wrong. My memory must have blended together the two paragraphs or conjoined their meanings. My apologies.