Is Afghan war really about resources?

Sidney H. Goodman, Las Vegas

Thursday, June 17, 2010 | 2:04 a.m.

Regarding Dan K. Thomasson’s Wednesday column, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan:”

Thomasson’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan echoes the major arguments for not involving the U.S. in a lose-lose situation. Our involvement there comes at the expense of our troops’ lives and billions of dollars, which could be better spent at home.

Taking into account the historical experience of all world powers that tried and failed to subsume the Afghans and their territory, I never understood the value to the United States of being there. Sure, we wanted to capture Osama bin Laden (almost had him, but let him get away), to provide a freer society for Afghan girls and women (but the schools and children are bombed with regularity), and to rid the world of a major source of addictive narcotics (but poppy cultivation still puts more income into the hands of Afghan farmers than any other crop). The corruption, malfeasance and backwardness of the governmental infrastructure (national to local warlords) negate any possible positive outcome we hope to achieve.

So why do we stay? We finally found out last weekend when the media advised us of the humongous trove of rare earth and other critical metals under Afghan soil. Without these natural resources, our electronics revolution sputters and becomes more expensive, our economy continues to stagnate and our worldwide control of essential materials declines. The United States is acting like the European imperialists three centuries ago, especially in Africa and the Far East and the Arab moguls in the oil-rich Middle East. Conquer the native populations, sell their resources to the highest bidder, and become a wealthy member of the global elite.

Now we all know why we really can’t leave Afghanistan.