Zemco

Why would you want to present a fallacious argument based on a false premise? And why would you, with your moniker being "Officer of Engineers," automatically make a baseless assumption that geo-strategy is unchanging and never evolving?

The objective of the MECAS strategy hasn't changed since it was formulated in 1974, but that does not mean that the overall strategy has not evolved. Afghanistan was not originally part of the strategy, because was essentially a great rock devoid of anything of value. If the country had disappeared, the world would have actually benefited.

The fact that Daud overthrew the constitutional monarchy in 1974 isn't relevant to US geo-strategy. The fact that he was overthrown by the military in 1978 isn't relevant either. The fact that the military was over thrown by a pro-Soviet group shortly thereafter is of no relevance, and neither is the fact that the pro-Soviet Afghan government beat off a counter-coup by the military and then a subsequent counter-coup by Daud's supporters.

That the pro-Soviet government had lost supporters, equipment, weapons and munitions defending against the counter-coup attempts is of no relevance, except to the extent that they were in no position to stop an army of tribes from the northwest from marching on Kabul. Likewise, they were in no position to stop a second army of northern tribes heading toward Kabul, nor could they stop a 3rd army (the core of what is today the Taliban) coming from the south.

The logical conclusions one could draw is that whichever army got to Kabul first was going to be the next government of Afghanistan, and if the present pro-Soviet government wanted to remain in power, it was going to need massive military assistance from an ally.

The pro-Soviet Afghan government asked the Soviets for help, and the Soviets obliged. If you bought into the Zbigniew Brzezinski and Gary Sick nonsense story of unprovoked Soviet aggression with designs on Iran hook-line-and-sinker, then that doesn't say much about your war-gaming skills.

Afghanistan did not figure into US geo-strategy until the mid-1990s, and then only to the extent that it was a potential oil and natural gas pipeline route.

The Clinton Administration was successful in exerting US hegemony in Central Asia, allowing UNOCAL (now Chevron) to purchase the rights to 75% of the oil and natural gas in the region. The oil and natural gas reserves, according to experts, may be 3-5 times larger than that of the Middle East.

For certain oil and natural gas fields, there are only 4 possible pipeline routes, through the mountains, through Russia, through Iran or through Afghanistan.

Enron's bid for a mountain pipeline got shot down after Lloyd's of London commented that it would never insure such a project, and that sent the banks running, taking any hopes of financing the project with them. The US does not want to see the pipelines run through Russia or Iran.

So, Afghanistan is not part of the overall grand strategy, it's just a side-show however, that might change if the US is locked out of Iran.

The US lost control in Central Asia, getting booted from its airbases and military facilities Clinton built in part because the US has a difficult time exerting its influence. The US needs an air and land corridor to those states and the best route is through Iran. The only other possibility would be for the US to recognize the independence of Baluchistan and set up a puppet government in hopes that it will one day eventually control Afghanistan and be able to get the pipeline under construction.

Once the US is sitting on the borders of the Central Asian states, it will be able to much more effectively wield its power and influence (assuming the US isn't a 3rd World country by 2015).

I speak 5 languages, but only learned one at university. I learned the others living in those countries, and yes, I had my ass in the grass just like everyone else. I was constantly promoted ahead of my peers in part because my thinking is not rigid, not inflexible, not myopic, not parochial, and I can quickly adapt and react to changing situations.