Tag Archives: Afghanistan

Look in the Mirror, Democrats

02 Tuesday Nov 2010

Posted by in Democrats, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If the election results go as expected tonight and Republicans take control of at least the House, the hand-wringing and ‘what happened?’ from the Democratic side of the aisle will commence shortly thereafter. In the search for someone or something to blame I suggest Democrats, including President Obama, need look no further than the nearest mirror. This blurb from Politico pretty much sums up the problem:

“…even White House advisers quietly admit a far more jobs-focused, targeted stimulus would have been more effective as a policy and political tool.”

Ya think? Do ya freakin’ think so? That epiphany comes about 18 months too late, but I guess better late than never. Maybe if the president had listened to someone outside of his inner circle jerk of “advisers” who were saying that from the get-go he wouldn’t be preparing to deal with a Republican Congress in January.

But that wasn’t the only serious misstep that put Obama and the Democrats in the situation in which they find themselves. It goes back to before Inauguration Day of 2009. Beginning when the candidate who said he wanted to change the way business was done in Washington named a poster child of the way business is done in Washington to be his chief of staff.

Then, faced with an economic crisis not seen in this country since the 1930′ s, he named as his chief economic adviser one of the main culprits in creating the conditions that led to the financial meltdown, Larry Summers. He then nominated as his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a protégé of another architect of the collapse, Robert Rubin. Enjoy your stay at the henhouse, Mr. Fox.

This was the change we could believe in?

When it came to the stimulus package there were a number of economists (outside of that sacred inner circle) who were saying that it needed to be bigger and focused almost entirely on spending to create jobs. They were summarily ignored. An arbitrary figure was arrived at–$1 trillion–which for political purposes the stimulus could not exceed. And in the spirit of bi-partisanship, a good chunk of the package was made to include tax cuts. This was done to supposedly draw Republican support for the stimulus. How did that work out?

Just as an aside here, President Obama later said that he underestimated the size and intensity of the opposition from Republicans in Congress. Was he asleep during the 90’s when Republicans impeached a Democratic president for…well, you know what for. His estimation of the GOP opposition should have been Clinton X 10.

On health care reform, the candidate who ran on a public option and no individual mandate did a sudden 180 and became the president of no public option and an individual mandate. The candidate who promised lower prescription drug prices by way of drug importation from Canada and elsewhere cut a backroom deal with Pharma to insure their monopoly.

Also on health care reform, if the president and Democrats would ask those who supported them in ‘08 (instead of calling them whiners and telling them to buck up) they might find out that just as many, if not more, will tell them too little was done in the way of “reform,” not too much.

The candidate who railed against the Bush “war on terror” constitutional and civil liberties abuses not only continued those policies but now seeks to increase them by expanding the government’s wiretap powers and targeting American citizens who are suspected of terrorist ties for assassination. Not to mention tripling down on the number of troops in Afghanistan,  and expanding the drone war and covert operations into Pakistan, Yemen, and only God and the CIA knows where else.

And they wonder why there’s an enthusiasm gap?

Democrats in Congress don’t escape blame either. In two consecutive elections, 2006 and 2008, they were given overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof number in the Senate, plus the White House. Memo to Democrats: American voters didn’t  give you those majorities because of your sparkling personalities, they wanted things done.

Just for future reference, if and when you get that kind of power again—use it. Don’t squander it bickering amongst yourselves. Take a page from the Republican playbook and enforce some party discipline. By whatever means necessary. It would help to have a Senate Majority Leader with something resembling a spine. You had the Republican Party down for the count, but you let them up and look at what is about to happen.

Taliban Hired for Security at U.S. Bases in Afghanistan

08 Friday Oct 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Congress, Pentagon, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the day that marked the beginning of the 10th year of the Afghani-Nam cluster(bleep) the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI), released the results of an investigation which found that private security forces hired by the Pentagon to protect our military bases there include Taliban warlords and people with ties to Iran.

“Afghan private security forces with ties to the Taliban, criminal networks and Iranian intelligence have been hired to guard American military bases in Afghanistan, exposing United States soldiers to surprise attack and confounding the fight against insurgents, according to a Senate investigation.

The Pentagon’s oversight of the Afghan guards is virtually nonexistent, allowing local security deals among American military commanders, Western contracting companies and Afghan warlords who are closely connected to the violent insurgency, according to the report by investigators on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[…]

There are more than 26,000 private security employees in Afghanistan, and 90 percent of them are working under United States government contracts or subcontracts. Almost all are tied to the militias of local warlords and other powerful Afghan figures outside the control of the American military or the Afghan government, the report found.”

But as usual, Congress loves to have investigations and release reports followed by nothing. Especially true when the findings involve the Pentagon, which is apparently a government unto itself, with an unlimited budget and unrestrained power.

“Levin did not indicate that he would seek any legislative fixes. The panel’s investigation likely will inform two Pentagon task forces that are looking into the problems.”

Letting the fox “look into problems” at the henhouse is always a good idea.

“Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, earlier this month issued guidance on the use of contractors “that made it clear that all corrective actions, including terminating contracts and suspending and disbarring contractors, will be on the table,” Levin said.

Levin said that commanders in Afghanistan, with Petraeus in the lead, are committed to change the “status quo” of private security contracts in Afghanistan.”

I take it General Petraeus and Sen. Levin aren’t aware that the State Department recently awarded a 5-year, $10 billion contract to eight private companies for security in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the infamous Blackwater under another name.

But always looking on the bright side, Republicans on the committee “faulted the report for failure to acknowledge the positive impact of providing employment to Afghans.”

If only they were that interested in providing employment to Americans.

“Levin said…that his panel’s report underscores the need to “shut off the spigot” of U.S. money going into the “pockets of warlords.”

I know of one sure-fire way to “shut off the spigot,” Sen. Levin. Get the hell out of there. Now.

Vietnam Redux

22 Wednesday Sep 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Iraq, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The ever-increasing toll that an endless number of deployments necessitated by our state of perpetual war is taking on our soldiers. In Iraq:

“When Lt. Col. Dave Wilson took command of a battalion of the 4th Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, the unit had just returned to Texas from 14 months traveling some of Iraq’s most dangerous roads as part of a logistics mission.

What he found, he said, was a unit far more damaged than the single death it had suffered in its two deployments to Iraq.

Nearly 70 soldiers in his 1,163-member battalion had tested positive for drugs: methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana. Others were abusing prescription drugs. Troops were passing around a tape of a female lieutenant having sex with five soldiers from the unit. Seven soldiers in the brigade died from drug overdoses and traffic accidents when they returned to Fort Bliss, near El Paso, after their first deployment.”

In Afghanistan:

“The U.S. soldiers hatched a plan as simple as it was savage: to randomly target and kill an Afghan civilian, and to get away with it…For weeks, according to Army charging documents, rogue members of a platoon from the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, floated the idea. Then, one day last winter, a solitary Afghan man approached them in the village of La Mohammed Kalay. The “kill team” activated the plan.

One soldier created a ruse that they were under attack, tossing a fragmentary grenade on the ground. Then others opened fire…According to charging documents, the unprovoked, fatal attack on Jan. 15 was the start of a months-long shooting spree against Afghan civilians that resulted in some of the grisliest allegations against American soldiers since the U.S. invasion in 2001. Members of the platoon have been charged with dismembering and photographing corpses, as well as hoarding a skull and other human bones.”

Steve Hynd at Newshoggers (my emphasis):

“Drug abuse and suicide rates are at record highs, misdemeanours committed while in uniform have almost doubled in the last five years, sexual assaults by those in uniform have trippled since 2001.

Over a million US servicemen and women have passed through Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Estimates on how many suffer from some form of PTSD-related illness range from 40-60%. If current psychological data on how mental illness spreads its hurt like ripples in a pool are any guide, each of them will adversly affect between five and twelve friends and close family, who will see negative behavioural changes themselves ranging from mild PTSD-like symptoms to full shell-shock caused by a mentally ill but still abusive partner or parent.

And this is why you should care. The American victims of Bush’s adventures, continued by Obama, are your brothers, sisters, parents, spouses and friends. Their troubles will affect your sister, your brother…you get the idea. This is one area where both Iraq and Afghanistan are like Vietnam.

Bring them ALL home.“

Army Suicides Hit a Record High

16 Friday Jul 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Iraq, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

As if another reason to get the hell out–and I mean completely out–of Iraq and Afghanistan were needed:

“The U.S. Army on Thursday reported a record number of suicides in a single month among active duty, Guard and Reserve troops, despite an aggressive program of counseling, training and education aimed at suicide prevention.

Suicides for the first half of the year are up 12 percent over 2009. In June, 32 soldiers are believed to have committed suicide, including 21 on active duty.

[…]

Army officials have been grappling in recent years with how to prevent suicides among soldiers dealing with the stress of multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, suicide claimed the lives of 163 soldiers on active duty and 82 Guard and Reserve soldiers not on active duty.

The problem is not isolated to the Army. In 2009, 52 Marines and 48 Sailors took their own lives in 2009, according to a report by the American Forces Press Service. Air Force officials reported 41 active-duty suicides, a 12.5 per 100,000 ratio, in 2009.”

Supporting the troops means bringing them home. Not next year or when “conditions on the ground” are right, or when Vietnamization Afghan forces taking responsibility for their own country is complete. Now.

The Semantics of Perpetual War

06 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Iraq, Obama administration, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

I can change my name to Buick and sit in the garage—it doesn’t make me a car. Likewise, whether it’s called “combat operations” or “stability operations” in Iraq—it’s still a war. And leaving 50,000 troops there isn’t a “withdrawal.”

“President Obama has set an August deadline for the end of the combat mission in Iraq…The August deadline might be seen back home as a milestone in the fulfillment of President Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq, but here it is more complex. American soldiers still find and kill enemy fighters, on their own and in partnership with Iraqi security forces, and will continue to do so after the official end of combat operations.

[…]

What soldiers today would call combat operations — hunting insurgents, joint raids between Iraqi security forces and United States Special Forces to kill or arrest militants — will be called “stability operations.” Post-reduction, the United States military says the focus will be on advising and training Iraqi soldiers, providing security for civilian reconstruction teams and joint counterterrorism missions.

“In practical terms, nothing will change,” said Maj. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, the top American military spokesman in Iraq. “We are already doing stability operations.”

[…]

“I like to say that in Iraq, the only thing Americans know for certain, is that we know nothing for certain,” said Brett H. McGurk, a former National Security Council official in Iraq and current fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

This much IS certain. The end is not in sight for the practice of perpetual war. In Iraq or Afghanistan.

In Defense of Michael Steele—Sort Of

03 Saturday Jul 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I can’t believe this, but I’m going to defend the remarks of RNC Chairman Michael Steele, at least in part. Which is more than I can say for the response from the DNC.

Of course Steele’s accusation that Afghanistan is “a war of Obama’s choosing” is ridiculous. Afghanistan was a war of no one’s choosing, it was a response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. And the reason Afghanistan deteriorated into the situation President Obama inherited was because of the choices of the Bush administration, who neglected Afghanistan for 7 years in the misguided pursuit of the “war of their choosing” in Iraq.

But to be fair, President Obama has made some significant choices in relation to Afghanistan. He chose to increase the number of troops there soon after taking office. He chose to replace Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal, which included a choice to shift strategy from McKiernan’s more conventional approach to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan. Because of this change in strategy the president chose to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by another 30,000.

When Obama replaced McChrystal recently, the president chose to bring in Gen. Petraeus and stick with counterinsurgency despite a growing number of indications, including the grumblings by McChrystal and his staff included in the Rolling Stone piece, that it isn’t working.

Steele was right on the money with this part of his remarks:

“Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that.”

That brought this reaction from the DNC:

“Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They’d also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

“And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are ‘comical’ and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.”

As Greg Sargent at Plum Line points out, (and Glenn Greenwald at Salon agrees) these charges are a tactic straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook, and one which the Bush administration often leveled at Democrats over the war in Iraq. That anyone who criticizes any aspect of the war is advocating for “cutting and running” and doesn’t “support the troops.”

Greenwald:

“Two points about this:   (1) there’s nothing “tough” or “rough” about the DNC statement; it’s actually lame, desperate and ineffective.  As I noted above, the 2006 and 2008 GOP-crushing elections both proved that these rhetorical insults do not work any longer.  Beyond that, attacking people for criticizing the War in Afghanistan is as dumb as when the Republicans attacked people who criticized the Iraq War.”

As Dave Dayen at Firedoglake points out, an amendment to the war supplemental in the House which called for a withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan got 162 votes, a majority of the Democratic caucus.

Greenwald concludes:

“I wonder what the DNC has to say about the fact that a majority of their Party’s House caucus are cowardly, solider-hating traitors who are betting against the Troops.”

Operation Enduring Insanity

28 Monday Jun 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama administration, Pakistan, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

CIA Director Leon Panetta appeared on ABC’s This Week yesterday, where he laid out some of the “problems” we face in Afghanistan along with our “fundamental purpose” there and what “winning” might look like. From Think Progress:

Too bad most, if not all, of what Panetta describes is not based in reality.

“There are some serious problems here. We’re dealing with a tribal society. We’re dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency.”

We’re dealing with a country that isn’t a country. Afghanistan combat veteran Wes Moore was on Meet the Press yesterday where he gave this account:

“…one of the things we did–I was with a team in Afghanistan, you go out and you give out gifts to people. And one of the things that we would, we would give out to some of the tribal leaders were cutout–were maps, which were cutouts of Afghanistan.  And literally, the most popular question was, “What is this?” And we’d say, “It’s your country.”

Problems with governance, corruption, and narcotics trafficking? The problem is that the Karzai government and his family are at the root of the corruption and narcotics trafficking. From stealing last year’s election, to his brother’s (alleged) involvement in the heroin trade, to the same brother awarding security sub-contracts to a company owned by 2 of Karzai’a cousins, to this:

“In recent months…Afghan prosecutors and investigators have been ordered to cross names off case files, prevent senior officials from being placed under arrest and disregard evidence against executives of a major financial firm suspected of helping the nation’s elite move millions of dollars overseas.

Afghanistan is awash in international aid and regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Indeed, even as the United States and its allies pour money in, U.S. officials estimate that as much as $1 billion a year is flowing out as part of a massive cash exodus.

The money, as first reported in The Washington Post in February, is often carried out in full view of customs officials at Kabul’s airport, where such transfers are legal as long as they are declared. Officials suspect much of the cash is going to the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, where elite Afghans, including Karzai’s older brother, have villas.”

How do we on the one hand acknowledge that government corruption is a major problem while we continue to prop up the government and the president that is hip-deep in corruption?

Back to Panetta: “But I think the fundamental key, the key to success or failure is whether the Afghans accept responsibility, are able to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability. If they can do that, then I think we’re going to be able to achieve the kind of progress and the kind of stability that the president is after…it is going to take the Afghan army and police to be able to accept the responsibility that we pass on to them. That’s going to be the key. ”

The size of the Afghan security forces our generals say are needed to provide that stability, about 450.000, would cost about $3 billion a year to maintain. The annual budget of Afghanistan is $600 million. They can’t do it. Care to guess who will be expected to pick up the tab?

Panetta’s definition of “winning”:

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safe haven for Al Qaida or for a militant Taliban that welcomes Al Qaida…Our purpose, our whole mission there is to make sure that Al Qaida never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country. That’s the fundamental goal of why the United States is there.”

Earlier in the interview Panetta admitted that there are only 50 to 100 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, “maybe less.”

Emptywheel has it exactly right:

“So 1,000 US troops per al Qaeda member, at a cost of $1 million each. That’s $1 billion a year we spend for each al Qaeda member to fight our war in Afghanistan.

This sort of adds a new twist to that old Einstein quip about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Because we’re doing the same thing over and over again–at a cost of $1 billion a year per nominal opponent–and expecting anything other than bankruptcy.”

It all comes down to this, from a McClatchy article about Iraq but it applies to Afghanistan as well:

“…a nearly inviolable rule governs this arena: Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation unless its people and its leaders all are asking for it. Otherwise the nation’s oligarchy will fight to restore the old order of things, to protect their positions and perquisites. It happens every time.”

The Afghan Protection Racket

23 Wednesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama administration, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I thought part of the strategy of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan was to stop corruption by officials in the Karzai government, not become an active participant in it. Turns out I was wrong, there’s a Mafia-style protection racket going on there, funded by you and me, which even includes payments to our supposed enemies–-the Taliban. And of course, Hamid Karzai and some more of his crooked relatives have their hands in the pie as well. What a surprise:

“The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators.

The security arrangements, part of a $2.16 billion transport contract, violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations, and “dramatically undermine” larger U.S. objectives of curtailing corruption and strengthening effective governance in Afghanistan, a report released late Monday said.”

Not that any of this is news to the DOD:

“The report describes a Defense Department that is well aware that some of the money paid to contractors winds up in the hands of warlords and insurgents.”

What do they care, it’s our money, and there’s always plenty more where that came from.

“In testimony shortly after Obama’s strategy announcement, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that “much of the corruption” in Afghanistan has been fueled by billions of dollars’ worth of foreign money spent there, “and one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”

It must have been a momentary case of amnesia that caused Secretary Clinton to neglect to mention that the US happens to be a major source of that “foreign money.” Just an unintentional oversight, I’m sure.

But not to worry, this is what Gen. McChrystal calls “entrepreneurship.”

“Unlike in the Iraq war, the security and vast majority of the trucks are provided by Afghans, a difference that Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has praised as promoting local entrepreneurship.”

And wherever there’s corruption the Karzai-leone crime family can’t be far behind:

“The report describes a system in which subcontractors — most of them well-known warlords who maintain their own militias — charge $1,500 to $15,000 per truck to supply guards and help secure safe passage through territory they control. The most powerful of them, known as Commander Ruhullah, controls passage along Highway One, the principal route between Kabul and Kandahar, under the auspices of Watan Risk Management, a company owned by two of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s cousins.

Overall management of who wins the security subcontracts, it said, is often controlled by local political powerbrokers such as Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, head of the Kandahar provincial council.”

The Afghan warlords, the Taliban, and the Karzai family would like to express their appreciation to the American taxpayers for their continued support. And they hope we hang around another 10 or 20 years.

Senate Turns Down Extension of Unemployment Benefits

17 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republicrats in the Senate gave a big middle finger to the long-term unemployed yesterday, as 12 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting down the extension of unemployment benefits, citing their hypocritical concerns about increasing the deficit as the reason:

“I’ve said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we’re spending,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who voted against the bill. “$77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We’ve got to stop doing that.”

Funny, Sen. Nelson didn’t have any problem with deficit spending when he voted for $165 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) also voted again the extension over her concerns that unemployment benefits are so generous that they encourage people to not look for a job:

“We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance,” Feinstein said. “The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?”

Right DiFi, the unemployed are getting fat and happy living on benefits that are about one-third of their previous wages. This coming from the ninth richest member of Congress whose assets in 2005 were estimated at $40 million. And oh by the way, whose husband, Richard Blum, just happens to own two defense contractors that benefitted greatly from Sen. Feinstein’s time as chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

Feinstein was echoing what Congressman John Linder (R-GA) said last week:

“Georgia Republican Rep. John Linder suggested Thursday that extended unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work…”[N]early two years of unemployment benefits are too much of an allure for some,” said Linder.”

OK, Rep. Linder, let’s apply your logic to the Pentagon. Since you also voted for the $165 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t that “too much of an allure” for the continuation of both wars? Let’s cut off their funding and end their addiction.

Last but not least, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) turned up the stoopid yesterday with his proposal that the unemployed undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. Right, Orrin. The 46% of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 6 months, the highest number since the Labor Department started keeping that statistic in 1948, would rather sit around the house, get high and watch the tube than go to work. Idiot.

I propose that members of Congress undergo drug testing. Or maybe more appropriately, brain scans.

Convenient Timing of “Newly Discovered” Mineral Assets in Afghanistan

14 Monday Jun 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Speaking of Afghanistan, with nothing but bad news coming out of there lately, I find the timing of the announcement of these “previously unknown” and “newly discovered” mineral deposits just a little too convenient. Mostly because they are neither previously unknown nor newly discovered. Sounds to me like a good excuse reason for us to stay indefinitely.

“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.

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.

[…]

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.”

But later in the article it says that in 2004 American geologists “stumbled upon” some old charts and data that had been compiled by Soviet mining experts during their occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

“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.”

So why release it now? Something’s rotten in Kabul—and at the Pentagon. For instance:

“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.”

Since when did the Pentagon get into the mineral development business? I smell another round of no-bid contracts in the near future. Does Halliburton do mining?