why usa is still remained in afghanistan after a winning war?
86557
The United States "liberates" a country and then sets up a permamnent base there. We have bases all over the world idk of another government that does this.
1097909
the war in afghanistan
800639
A better question would have been "What is going through Afghanistan?" The answer is an oil pipeline that will bring the oil riches of Kazhakstan to Iraqi oil ports. This will save American oil companies a lot of money so they can be even more profitable than they are now.\n\nContrary to what Donald Rumsfeld has said in public, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are only about one thing - oil! Oil is money. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and most of the rest of the over privileged Republicans in the US don't give a crap about democracy. Their only concern is lining their own pockets with even more money. Why would this war be any different than any other war? You can point to all kinds of human atrocities that are the results of wars, but the real evil is the unbridled lust for wealth.
563619
Osama is there or not only God Knows.But there are many Osamas Fighting for injustice,fighting for freedom fighting for peace in the Afghanistan.The media is controlled by US.So they show everything in one or other way favouring USA.So we cannot see the ground reality.Usama alone cannot do anything.
247478
We fought in Afghanistan to capture Osama and friends. That was a justifiable reaction to 9-11.\nThe Iraq war was not then and is not now justifiable.\n\nI should add that the UN resolution did not authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq. Note this from a most conservative analyst, David Pyne, writing in "The American Partisan" before the war: \n"On Nov. 8, under heavy pressure from the United States, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution against Iraq mandating that it disarm itself of any remaining WMD capabilities or face 'serious consequences.' However, many of the nations that agreed to the new resolution were quick to point out that the resolution did not give the US authority to attack Iraq. The US has stated in response that it would use the resolution as authority to invade Iraq if it became evident that Iraq had failed to comply with the will of the United Nations. Iraq has since accepted the new UN resolution and agreed to allow inspectors to resume their inspections without conditions."\n\nSurely people can do better than this to justify the war! Inspections were being allowed, and inspectors publicly stated they found no WMDs, but of course we scoffed at their conclusions and unilaterally interpreted "serious consequences" as giving us the right to invade.
556647
Everyone with an IQ over single digits tends to hate Bush. I, for one, love my country and support the troops over there fighting right now; but I want them to come home.Now. Bush should have kept the war in Afghanistan and only in Afghanistan. That was our original target, right? Well now you don't even hear about Afghanistan anymore; everything's Iraq,Iraq, Iraq! Now it's shifting to Iran. What happened to Afghanistan? More importantly: What happened to Bin Laden!? Bush has his priorities all screwed up. But then again, I doubt if he ever cared about Bin Laden in the first place.
1186099
i'm surprised there aren't better answers to this "question".\n\nYou're right to bring up the USSR since it plays a major role in todsy's afghanistan.  let me see if i can explain it a little better.\n\nWhen the USSR invaded Afghanistan decades ago, the "Red Scare" made the US give weapons and tanks to fight off the Communists.  the organization that the US and other countries were giving supplies to was *trumpet sounds* the Taliban. Ooooooooooh.\n\nWhen the USSR crumbled, the Taliban still had weapons and tanks and countries including us, the US, still gave a little assistance to help fight off a growing Iranian threat.\n\nThen the Taliban started veering farther to the extreme right of Islam, cutting ties with former "allies" and gaining control of an Islam ruled Afghanistan, with a growing hate for former ally the US.\n\nSeveral bombings around the world at US embassies and here at the WTC in 1993 are Taliban-led.\n\nEnter 9/11, and you get a reaction that is strong, and decisively necessary for Afghanistan to get any semblance of control back from the leaders who wanted nothing but power.\n\nI don't believe the numbers you've given, and the carpet bombing you speak of happened only in the mountains where Bin Laden was said to be hiding.  Not many civilians living in caves, you know?\n\nDoes that help?\n\nOh, and people talk about poor and weak nations over there, but they forget the POOREST nation which is Haiti.
429585
Im writing this more as a response to nawab's answere because its pretty clear that paksitan's being spared because of strategic reasons in the subcontinent region. as far nawb's answere is concerned and his reference to pakistan having a "big" stake in the fight against terrorism and that pakis dying and the casualty number being more than 9/11 victims and also the highlight being and which forced me to post this answere that pakistan's "strategy" winning the war agaist U.S.S.R. Im glad that he pointed out the fact that the US supplied money and weapons for the war against soviet union, however american military and the american intelligence is n was not stupid enough to tell pakistan that "ok guys here's the dow n here's the hardware, go and kick ass we know u can do it on ur own while we sit at pentagon n watch the video game". cmon give urself a break and come back to reality for gawd's sake dude, pakistan couldn't even win a war against india and paki military was not even half of what its right now then (not that its any better now) and you think the US IS GONNA THROW ALL THAT MONEY AND military resources on a country like that and depend on its strategies? yeah rt? The war was majorly won because of the afghan terrain and the afghan mujahideen guirellas and also things were not going great at home for the reds and the deterioration of soviet union had started by then. tye strategies were completely provided by the US military ad to an extent the afgahn mujahideen AND NOT BY THE PAKI MILITARY (maybe there were jobless pakis fighting the war just like they are doing right now by joinign different terrorist organisations). The problems that pakistan faces today and why it has to pump in so much of itys own resources in fighting the terrorist is becoz of it s own "policies and stragies" that it followed, which was supporting taliban and other hard core terrorist groups and also turnign a blind eye to their recruitment and other unacceptable activities because pakistan wanted to get abck at india for helping bangladesh break away by cultivating terrorsit camps. entire world knows that in paki mosques  on fridays there are people collecting and donating money openly and freely in the name of islam which is used for terrorist activites. so pakistan is not the victim here its the perpetrator. its the paki guy who was the master mind behind 9/11 and the london bombers were trained in pakistan and also the 7 terrorist caught in london recently were alos trained in apkistan which they admitted. yes there are good people in pakistan but majority of them hate US and the wesatern world(no one knows for sure why the master mind of 9/11 who is a paki palnned it in the fiors place, he had no good reason to do that). they hate the same world were they immigrate to and crawl to all the nook and corners of new york or london or sydney abd then support terrorism from tere. pakistan is a country which is created by spiulling blood and it will get washed away in blood in its own blood. god bless america!!
781763
I'm not sure what you are trying to really ask but I'll guess. During Russia's illegal invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan. The US and Pakistan did send advisors and aid to Afghanistan to assist the Mujaheddin insurgents? Even with the assistance Russia still killed over 2 million Afghan civilians and militia. But in the end Russia got their butts handed to them on a platter and kicked back across their border. Only difference between the movie and the real thing was it was the Afghan militia that kicked Russia's butt not a Hollywood actor with a speak impediment.
34991
Because they are a hop, skip, and a jump away from Afganistan where we have troops already deployed. On the other side you have India who would GLADLY help the US with Pakistan. All to do with self preservation not shared political values.
814855
The last real war that Russia was in was when Afghanistan handed them there A$$ on a platter 1980-1987. China was a supporter of North Vietnam but wasn't really at war. When the supported North Korea in the Korean War. They basically lost that one when the US led NATO troops pushed them back above the 38th parallel. Both now just sit back and watch the world go by and sell arms.
390331
There are two reasons for this. One, America stands to profit from a leader like Musharraf. Musharraf may have snatched the position of power in an unscruplous way, but he still manages to keep his country fairly peaceful and does not encourage jehad(holy war) openly. So it makes sense having a leader with a popular vote (despite no democracy), one who does not bomb India/the world. \n\nSecondly, India's association with the US is fine, but it would never accept any war attacks on China from its soil. The next best bet? Pakistan of course. Pakistan also benefits economically out of this friendship - F 16s, nuclear technology, emergency aid et al. So the US actually benefits having a base to declare war on China(similar to Puerto Rico to keep an eye on Cuba) \n\nNow, having voiced my opinion on the Pak friendship, US actually preaches democracy and tries to install the same whereever possible. But when trying to install democracy or instigating change does not benefit the US economically, it does not do anything. Makes sense, after all US is a capitalistic economy. \n\nIts all a case of how-is-it-going-to-help-me and that is really what makes the US great!
1153959
Um, yeah.  You're right all the way.  We left the job half finished and ran off to start another war we didn't need to.  Now Osama is still out there, terrorists have a new breeding ground in the chaotic Iraq, and druglords and the Taliban are resurfacing in Afghanistan.  I wish I had a better answer for you.
853166
I agree with staying until Iraq and Afghanistan have solid governments and the factions have quit butchering each other to gain power. I don't know if enough Americans can stand the length of time that may be needed to get it done.
956247
There are several reasons why we are out there.\n\nFirst, there is the NATO commitment.  We were there originally in 2002 to support the Americans.  Now, we are there under NATO for the Provincial Reconstructions Teams and the International Security Assistance Force.  None of that OEF stuff.  That is the American mission, primarily in the East of Afghanistan.\n\nSecond, we are there because President Hamid Karzai is asking us to stick it out.  We're helping out in the South, even if it might not look like it to the untrained, uninformed eyes of civilians.  There is one reason that the illegal armed factions have stepped up their attacks against the Canadians: we are winning, and scaring the living daylights out of them.  I mean, when they start digging in for a conventional war, you know that an insurgency is one the rocks.\n\nThird, we can't pull out until the job is done.  We are committed at least to 2009, possibly even longer.  But our desired end-state is that Afghanistan will be a secure, self-governing country free from warlords, drug kingpins, Taliban extremists and safe for everyone to live in.  That can't happen until the armed factions are either disarmed or routed in battle.  \n\nAnd you, jim22pb, get your head out of where the sun is not shining.  I have seen these videos, and they are doing pretty good in those firefights.  Small unit combat is nothing like Hollywood, make no mistake.  It's simple, it's brutal, and it works.  If anything, they are dealing with the enemy in a professional, methodical manner.  Yes, they duck a lot, but here is something for you.  It's not because they are under light fire that it's not accurate fire.  And a head sticking out over a wall is a pretty easy target if it won't move.  If it bobs up and down randomly and each time sending a few bullets your way, you'll keep down too.
941792
We are fighting FOR the government of Afghanistan not against it.
1028402
Well, we didn't find Osama bin Laden.  We bombed a lot of innocent Afghanis to death.  We got rid of the Taliban as the official leaders - they were very religious and repressive (especially against women).  That gave women more freedom, like the opportunity to go to school and work.  But it also opened up Afghanistan to the heroin growers and shippers that the Taliban had put out of business - most of the US heroin supply now comes from Afghanistan.