The article doesn’t really dismiss the argument even if the initial paragraphs make it seem like it, it just concludes that it seems unlikely to reach a point where the US could leverage the influence on a future local government, which is true but does not exclude/invalidate the previous proposition
The US swooped in to destroy Afghanistan after the Soviet era.
Afghanistan having strategic value because of oil.
Jesus Christ.
And people wonder why I don’t treat tankie history takes seriously.
EDIT: No, no, please, downvoters, inform me as to the history of Afghanistan’s booming oil industry.
oh yeah the us destroyed the middle east and former socialist countries for democracy, my bad.
So you’re doubling down on oil in Afghanistan?
reread the post you are responding to
No u
No one said it was due to a booming oil industry, but it was because of oil, I’m not sure how you’re not aware of this.
Reporting at the time: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11
Huh, it’s almost like “BUT MUH OIL” has been an easy refrain of people with a simplified view of world politics for decades now, even when it’s not actually relevant
The article doesn’t really dismiss the argument even if the initial paragraphs make it seem like it, it just concludes that it seems unlikely to reach a point where the US could leverage the influence on a future local government, which is true but does not exclude/invalidate the previous proposition