How is that "misleading"? The sources at the historycommons.org site that your OP is a virtual cut-and-paste of make it clear that the contingency plans against Afghanistan were part of the larger plan to combat terrorism and al-Qaeda/bin Laden. You do realize that the US interest in bin Laden, his terror group, and Afghanistan predate by
years the 9/11 attacks, right? And since bin Laden actually
did carry out the most destructive attack in US history on US soil from his refuge in Afghanistan, and since Mullah Muhammad Omar refused to extradite him both
before and
after the 9/11 attacks, the US (seeking revenge and justice for, again, a horrific attack
that had just happened) invaded Afghanistan. The
closest thing to an actual offer to turn over bin Laden only came
after US airstrikes had begun, and even that was only a proposal that bin Laden be turned over and tried by neutral Islamic states of the OIC,
not that he be turned over to the US as the US demanded.
And according to your links, the claim that the Taliban were seeking to get rid of bin Laden and even offered to help the US carry out a missile strike come from someone who was
effectively the Taliban's PR agent in the West, acting as their spokeswoman and ambassador and defending them, their government, and their actions! Even the link talking about how the Taliban was not happy with bin Laden and actually got into a gun battle with his bodyguards at one point
still makes it really clear that "The Taliban has shown no sign that it is willing to deliver Mr. bin Laden to the United States."
So, what you need to do is provide some actual evidence that the US interest in and invasion of Afghanistan was not in response to a very real and horrific terrorist attack carried out by a terrorist in a country that would not extradite him so the country he attacked could put him on trial, but instead was only carried out because the US wanted to build this pipeline that a dozen years later
still hasn't been built and whose future and security is in doubt because no one knows who will actually keep it safe and operating once NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan.
Actually,
the recently-released information said that Obama rejected those pessimistic analyses of the Afghanistan situation and the success of the proposed surge, even ignoring his own vice-president, in order to give the US generals in Afghanistan
the increased troop levels they asked for.
And has the Taliban agreed to anything, as a result of the surge? And what's to prevent the Taliban from breaking the agreement, once US forces leave?
How did the surge in
Afghanistan stop Pakistan from stopping the pipeline with Iran? And if Obama knew that the war in Afghanistan was hopeless and that the US presence would be irrelevant to the situation there regardless of how long troops stayed, how, exactly, would he be able to keep the pipeline protected and secure for the Shadowy Interests behind the pipeline who manipulated the US invasion into invading in the first place?
In other words, what, according to your conspiracy theory, is the plan to assuage the security concerns brought up
right in the very first link in your OP?
