The location of Afghanistan is key, as it has been for countless centuries. The US was not even dreamed of when the great empires of old fought and jossled for control of this region. Of course such a key location would become a strategic asset for the pursuit of other agendas mentioned such as the containment of Russia etc, but in my opinion this is not even a side show, just a sensible long term contingency. Lets not keep fooling ourselves that the US have one single global objective - they have many, and many of those conflict which each other - hence the mess they often find themselves in due to the various departments and agencies pursuing various agendas. Think of the US as a multiheaded hydra - each head trying to move the single overweight body in slightly different directions and you get the picture. For those who are interested in this region - watch closely what is happening in Pakistan. The drone missions are continuing and I have come accross (as yet unconfirmed) reports of the US using the flood disaster as cover to move special forces, intelligence officers, and other assets into the country. The Pakistani government and military are currently overstretched and can't keep tabs on thier 'friends' at the moment. It appears 'uncle sam' has noticed this and spotted an opportunity to do some of his special version of 'delivering aid'. Pakistan is vulnerable at the moment, I just hope that they are not too vulnerable, otherwise we could yet see even more 'collateral damage' in the middle east / asia due to the actions of the modern empire builders.......................

Yes that's one theory here is another . During the Cold War NATO and every other Western European organization connected to defense became filled with personnel who were conditioned by American dominance in military decisions. Over time these European officials identified European interest with the interests of the American state. At the Cold War's end they remained in their positions. And they by now automatically promoted American interests(that after all is how they had won their positions of influence during the Cold War). So even as the interest of Europe and America continued to diverge Bureaucratic power(and inertia) maintained the 'America First' ideology in Europe. And this is what led the European states to fatally back the Afghan disaster. But here where the two theories differ. According to the above theory support for the Afghan occupation by the European elites is a residual effect. And any real peace process that ends the possibility of European/Russian conflict will end its operation in the future. Perhaps this explains the support of the Bush regime for the Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers. Rapprochement between Russia and Europe will certainly bring down the Atlantic Bridge and the American elites work on that basis.

It was very obvious from the beginning. For American government is necessary to control a posible opposition from differents fronts and justify an invasion of natural resources. For such a reason I have some hypothesis: - American militia is flooding Russia by drugs, with the expected consecuenses. - Provoke internal and external conflicts that finally will represent lost money for russia. - Create Panic to Russian government to spent a great deal of money in armaments and so avoid its modernization. - Be near its frontiers to Monitor its status and take advantage of its weakness. - Be there when they feel sufficient strong to confront Russia. - Make money with puppet countries by place militar bases near Russia. - Be there to control the political,economical and/or technological expansion of any country. -Etc,...etc. All of these. resume what Frederik says. You must observe that when they make something they win many things

Listen, there are some of us in the states that do not want war at all. We have seen how your children, brothers, sisters, family suffered in afganastan. at the hand of wars period. we dont want it at all. violence only leads to more violence, corruption and power is the driving force of those who manipulate the hands of war. May we sever our hands from our wrists.

I agree...In my opinion objectivs of this fake "war on terror" are: 1. To find purpose-reason to prolong life of Nato( Usa dominant)and Usa(to remain as "only supepower") 2. To have a reason to project millitary power around the globe(bases ) 3. Find a "job" for other Nato members(so they do not think to much)and keep them doing something "useful"-to put Europe down 4.Stop Russia and special China change this status quo around the globe(economy,millitary.etc) which fits Usa-to keep things as they are 5,To make a way for rich resourses(future oil.gas pipelane) in Central Asia(next is Iran, Sudan,etc-Africa) 6.To make MIC(millitary industrial complex) happy and sell a lot weapons(include ABMS) becouse everyone will"need" one. 7. To medle in afairs of others(pay/bay government officials) for Purple,orange,green,rose "trojan horses" " 8.Spreding "democracy,human rights,etc" There is more:To by pass UN and all international laws, also to devide,break(more states will be born)brainwash ,dissarm(unprotected to be),spread of hate among different states(more wars),to weaken others and remain strong and maybe one day colonize all of this..Minor objectivs will be in place but major will not.China will in 20 Years become superpower(20-30 x bigger GDP than Usa) and Russia will remain superpower (will become richer and more powerful then ever) becouse, in my opinion,Usa (or any other state) GOT NO LEVEL AGAINST RUSSIA OR CHINA AND NEVER WILL HAVE. China did not have one single n.bombs and yet they win Korea war against Usa and the rest and now they have 1000 of them! To stop them?? Anyway,what is wrong is someone overtake someone by peaceful and honest means? Free market is what Usa hold as a holy and by that rule China did progress fast. I can't see anything wrong here! Also it is thanks to China continues grow why Usa economy did not colapse up to now. I think that Usa can do a lot of better in peace than in constant wars which is a wrong way to go...Thank you

Dialogue with the Taliban has been a off-n-on subject with some U.S politicans including Obama. One peace activist says America does not have the skills to do what is right and just for the common man because the bottom line has always been political, economical and military for its own agenda.