On the plus side, they'll never have to have BP drilling off their coast.

I think everyone is being too cynical about this. Without natural resources the place is doomed forever to just be a center of poppy farming and a thorn in the side of the world. Once they finally get some money coming in for a legit export industry then they can start educating themselves.

You know the only way to stop a reoccurring civil war? Bring prosperity to the people. This is what we had to do during reconstruction in the South, and the lesson that was hammered home after WWI.

Sure people are going to get their land stolen and are going to be abused by corporate interests to some degree but if this is done right overall their lives will be much better.

The Congo's problems go way beyond the impact of the gold/mineral industry.

that's all well and good. but what if, just a what if now, but what if they don't want to blow their mountains to bits, and fight over who owns the mineral rights, or to allow more infidels in their country to exploit their resources? i mean, is there a law that says that because it's there it has to be extracted? what if the people there say, thanks, but no thanks. would that be okay with everybody? would everyone just leave it at that and go home and stop salivating? does a nation have sovereignty over what's under their feet?

Every time you use your cell phone, a small child dies from malnutrition.

Just think what will happen to Afghanistan now ...

In order for mineral wealth to have a positive effect, a country needs a strong central government and an already-decent economic infrastructure. Afghanistan has neither. The Resource Curse will set in in no time, turning the place into a nightmare of corruption and violence, just like Nigeria, Congo and every other resource-rich and institution-poor country on Earth. The best case scenario is it ends up looking like Saudi Arabia- but given the weakness of the central government, I would call that unlikely. Just by finding this stuff, we have fucked them over. I'm with what Dan said yesterday: WHY WERE WE LOOKING? The Resource Curse is common knowledge in International Development circles. We should have known better- unless we were ultimately only thinking about ourselves.

@5- You don't want to know what people will do for the kind of money these metals are worth. They will get it however they can get away with, and in a country with a weak government, that means they can do anything. Anyone who tries to stand in the way of the devastation that will happen when the multinationals, in alliance with the warlords, set up mining operations will be killed. If anyone from the government asks questions about it, they'll be bribed- and they'll either take the bribe or be killed themselves.

Wealth (especially sudden unexpected wealth) usually shows the proof of a society.

Will they be savage like Congo or civil like Chile?

I know which I’m betting on… but I’m not going to say.

The only thing Afghanis will get out of this is the "privilege" of working in mines. With the exception of kickbacks to a handful of corrupt government officials, all of the mineral wealth will go to the foreign multinational corporation that owns the extraction equipment.

To be determined: Who will pay for security at the mines? My money is on the US taxpayer.

This one's a bit dusty but maybe it's time for a revival:

National Pentagon Radio.

Slavery just got a big thumbs up on behalf of the Afghan people, who will now toil in the mines for pennies a day.

@8 - thanks. i was kidding. i already know what will happen there. was just taking a moment to pretend the world isn't full of hounds and jackals.

@7 - we weren't looking. we knew. the question is why are we announcing it now? what God awful justification is about to be made that caused them to tell us what they have known, and the russians have known, and the chinese have known for decades?

but, at least we know three things, (1) the real reason we are there (well, the general public now knows.) and (2) why the troop build up and big daddy's big new check. and (3) why we didn't kill bin laden when we had him scoped. we need to leave the threat in place, like we did when we left hussein in place in '91. boogey men help us justify continued military action and long term occupation.

the next shoe to drop - the vast reserves of natural gas that are also there.

@13 - if so, the only place they'd be is in the southern section, and they'd probably get into a war with Iran over them.

It's not at all cynical to point out that this is not at all new information.

@3 - Uhm, "reoccurring civil war" ? I don't recall that the Russians in the 80s were all that civil. Similarly the rise of the Taliban and fomentation of all those poppy-driven warlord types was most likely actively encouraged by certain Empirical forces.

@13 - Aye to all that. Although I am of the opinion that the real reason we were there in the first place and put Karzai in command is to allow the giant pipeline being built across Afghanistan (and likely Pakistan) to get to all that oil near the Caspian without having to trek it over more, ahem, hostile territories like Iran. That's why we're meddling with Turkmenistan as well. But hey, the modern major minerals are a pretty good secondary reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afgha…