I'm a bit misunderstood here. I did not mean to imply that these resources are the reason we are there. However they are the reason we will remain there for a long, long time. The reason there have not been any major mining operations is twofold - 1) There is no infrastructure in place to get men/equipment where they need to go 2) The locations where the resources reside are not safe Hence my tentative timeline outlined above - 10-20 years for infrastructure with 30 years for profits. These resources reside at the remotest of locations and it will be a huge undertaking to build the infrastructure necessary for extraction and delivery. When trillions are on the line it will most certainly happen. Especially as the deposits are the minerals necessary for technological competitiveness; Batteries, transducers, etc.
This article sheds some light. Infrastructure development is behind schedule, but certainly under way. Also worth noting that the Mining Protection Agency has a 7,000 strong "Mining Protection Unit". Once the infrastructure fund paves the way, private investors will be interested in mining.
Except the US also has a lot of rare minerals. We just don't mine it because for now we can just buy it from the Chinese. So, why would we launch some massive infrastructure project in Afghanistan when we could just get it from our territory, which obviously already has the developed infrastructure?
Kojirou, Who is "we"? People who buy minerals prefer Chinese and (later) Afghani minerals because it costs less money and is far less scrutinized for labor conditions, etc.
This still doesn't make sense. Obviously people are trying to develop infrastructure in Afghanistan but if there is so much possibility why aren't infrastructure and mining companies like Bechtel taking the lead in doing so? Why are they willing to wait for USAID and others to develop the infrastructure when doing so might just mean that other companies and countries will have as good a shot as they do in getting Afghanistan's minerals? I am sure mineral resources play some role in the calculations about Afghanistan but I think it is a fairly small role.
Hopefully Obama will stop the loss once he wins reeletion. He doesn't want to give the Repubs a chance to claim he is not as macho as them. I find it disturbing that our guys and a lot of Afghans are being killed for this reason. If Romney wins,it just gets down to who his contributors are and how much they can make by sustaining the farce. Of course you have some real neo-cons around Romney who like wars irregardless of costs. Two recent conversations I had with folks who were in Afghanistan recently. 1) A infantry guy in his early twenties I guess. Discharged in Nov. 2011. He says we are not acoomplishing anything over there.." We're just chasing guys around the dessert. When we kill one guy, there are two more". Guy one is looking forward to goingback soon as a contractor to guide convoys or somesuch for big bucks" He has been largelyu unemployed since he left the military. Doesn't seem to distressed by the whole thing. Looking forward to contractor status which will finally give his wife who has major health problems some medical insurance. He has VA medical, but doesn't cover his wife. 2) Guy two is about 55 yrs old. Left Afghanistan in late 2009. A liftetime expert on very heavy cranes. He spent 6 yrs as a contractor in Afghanistan and made very good money as a contractor. Would like to do more, but has been discharged for health reasons. As to whether we are accomplishing anything ? "Not really. They have been killing each other for a thousand years and will do so after we leave".
Because even if you build the massive amount of infrastructure it is going to take to get to these resources you currently have a large chance of being shot while trying to get there.
The rare earth metals necessary for modern technologies are not as prevalent in the US as you think. And the deposits that are here also do not have the infrastructure to get at them. This means that even if you build the infrastructure to procure these deposits in the states it is not financially feasible compared to the prices available from China, even with the excessive taxes China imposes in order to regulate the price. Hence the "gold rush" for such elements around the globe. It just so happens the largest of these gold mines resides in Afghanistan. http://www.e-to-china.com/tariff_changes/Policy_Focus/2011/0407/92145.html
And I will clarify - This does not necessarily mean that we will maintain a military presence there for the next fifty years; although that is a possibility. It does mean that we have a strong interest in developing a competitor for China in this market. Right now China has the world over a barrel and is driving up prices to just below the point where it would be feasible to mine these resources in California. China currently provides 95% of the world's neodymium. They mine cheap without regard for the environment and then impose a tax to regulate the price. This brings them maximum profit while preventing it from becoming cost-effective for competitors. EAW loudspeakers have been forced to manufacture using ceramic magnets on some of their larger commercial units due to the fact that they would have to pass on a cost increase of hundreds of dollars per unit if they continued to use neodymium. They told me it costs them an additional $300.00 per enclosure for neodymium - and that is their cost. With the resources that reside in Afghanistan China loses its monopoly and technologies that depend on these elements become more cost effective: green energy technology, batteries, transducers, generators. Depending on China for these elements, as the world does now, puts our country at a significant disadvantage when trying to compete in technological markets. And that is why our interest in Afghanistan will be measured in decades and not years. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2936#.UC6JQqB5lhE
Excellent line on the rare earth potential of Afghanistan. Also good to know we have some in CA just in case. I remember we had a thread in which the last US machinery that could mine the stuff was sold off to China. Great move.
Recent article from the NY Times justifying our permanent occupation of Afghanistan. So who is ready to join the military and quell the locals so our wealthy imperialist corps & war mongers can profit further? After all, our iphones & laptops need lithium.
I'll openly amused I'm highly entertained by Classic's "America will occupy Afghanistan to suck out its rare earth resources" line.....when his very article mentions a Chinese company trying to open up business there. Not to mention that I don't see anything in that article justifying permanent occupation, but since when does that libertarians from fear-mongering. Not to mention I'm still a little bit confused. China exploits its own natural resources and then sells it to the United States for a cheap price. For some reason, this is such a serious problem that we are going to continue fighting in Afghanistan. I don't get it.
I'm openly amused at your lack of historical perspective relating to wars and foreign conquests for natural resources-especially the US'. Long term US friendly business interests and US friendly dictator figureheads might as well be considered US occupied. There is in fact a power grab for natural resources & commodities as our world population heads towards 10 billion in 2050. In case you haven't noticed either, multinational corporations are kinda running the show related to policy. Since your ambition is politics, I'm sure you'll figure that out soon enough. Here is a paper to read on the subject: http://pol.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/icsps_papers/2006/Kapfer2006.pdf Just because a corporate entity is 'domiciled' in China doesn't make it strictly chinese. Globalization is eliminating borders in pursuit of money & profits.
