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
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