Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Afghanistan and At Home, We're Being Driven Off a Cliff
Football fans have been quite taken by a recurring segment on ESPN's "NFL Countdown Show" called "C'mon man." Inspired by former wide receiver Keyshawn Johnson, botched plays from NFL action are highlighted, with the players involved being targeted for the "C'mon man" admonition.
It's funny stuff. But when President Barack Obama, after weeks of indecision, prepares to tell the nation in a prime time address that tens of thousands of more troops are going to be sent into the endless war in Afghanistan, it's not so funny. It's depressing. It's revealing. It's a decidedly serious "C'mon man" moment.
Perhaps as soon as Tuesday, the president will explain best he can why tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines are needed to pursue a war soon to pass Vietnam as the longest in our history. Some of our war fighters will be in their fourth or fifth tour of duty in combat zones. The cost of the war there could top a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, yet virtually all the generals and admirals and think tank armchair warriors have concluded that a military solution isn't possible.
President Obama says this is a war we must win. Retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, who has written widely on military power and its limitations, says it's a war we cannot win.
In a piece earlier this year in Commonweal, Mr. Bacevich wrote, "Liberals may have interpreted Obama's campaign pledge to ramp up the U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan as calculated to insulate himself from the charge of being a national-security wimp. Events have exposed that interpretation as incorrect. It turns out - apparently - that the president genuinely views this remote, landlocked, primitive Central Asian country as a vital U.S. security interest."
He suggests that if moral considerations are at the heart of our foreign policy, as many war proponents insist - if it's nation building that motivates us - we should fix, say, Mexico, which is of far greater importance to us than faraway Afghanistan.
So what can be expected to be achieved? There are murmurings about staying until a stable national government is in place in Kabul and the Afghans themselves are able to guarantee their own security. But we know there has never been a stable central government in that backward land. It's a tribal society, largely rural and famous for its ferocity and fearlessness, for a refusal to tolerate foreign occupation. Ask the Russians.
It's always a mistake to presume certain knowledge of the future. We can only guess at how events play out over time. Think, however, of what the ancient Chinese sage Sun Tzu said about how "no nation has ever benefited from a long war."
A few weeks ago, I mentioned that longtime American diplomat and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said on television that the Afghanistan experience is shaping up as startlingly similar to what happened to us in Vietnam; that it looks like a quagmire, yet he sees the way to avoid being mired yet again.
Trying to understand this determination to stay the course no matter how unlikely the prospect of success, it might help to turn to a quip from one expert on Afghanistan, Rory Stewart, who heads the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard and has been consulted by several members of the Obama administration on what to do there. He has testified before Congress on Afghan policies, but wonders how much affect he's having.
As quoted in Matthew Yglesias' blog, Mr. Stewart says, "It's like they're coming in and saying to you, 'I'm going to drive my car off a cliff. Should I or should I not wear a seat belt?' And you say, 'I don't think you should drive your car off the cliff.' And they say, 'No, no, that bit's already been decided - the question is whether to wear a seat belt.' And you say, 'Well, you might as well wear a seat belt.' And then they say, 'We've consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart and he says ...'"
It seems insane, doesn't it? We're deep in a debt pit and digging ourselves in ever deeper, soothed by the conceit that America is too big to fail, even though all previous world hegemons have in the end failed. We think of ourselves as an exception to that historical record, but chances are we're not.
President Obama made the war in Afghanistan his war. The anti-war people are silent because he's their man. Leading Democrats in the House are proposing a "surtax" on income to be used for paying the mounting costs of battling insurgents on the other side of the world. And we're reduced to shouting "C'mon man" as we are driven over that cliff.
80 Comments so far
Show AllWell that article was dismally "Spot On" as the Brits would say.
The only thing I would change in it are two words in one sentence.
"We think of ourselves as an exception to that historical record, but chances are we're not."
"chances are" needs to be taken out of that sentence.
Tom
Right, Tom! And let's remember we also thought we were different from the Japanese and the French who were defeated in Vietnam. In both cases we were/are defeated because we are not opposing an imperialist army (like ours); we were/are opposing peasant warriors/maquis who were at home in the terrain, brothers of the people living there and who, when push came to shove, preferred domination by their own SOBs to domination by ours.
Isn't that exactly what Americans would feel if some other power decided to "liberate" us from our government? I used to think that the problem with US foreign policy was that they couldn't grasp the fact that "foreigners" didn't think like them. The truth is that US governments can't grasp the fact that foreigners behave exactly as we would if we were invaded by imperialist adventurers.
"...who, when push came to shove, preferred domination by their own SOBs to domination by ours." God I love that line! That so describes the reason why our military keeps finding itself in all B/S it does.
Your second paragraph points out nicely that there is a large portion of our population that is completely incapable of looking at the world from the eyes of someone in another country.
Dear Barbara Tuchman, please tell us once again about those peculiar historical situations when all the central players of certain past doomed empires knew, as they made a series of decisions, a "March of Folly", that it would lead to almost certain failure but were totally incapable of acting in any other way.
Tony Vodvarka
"It seems insane, doesn't it?"
Yes it does, just as every day Bush was our usurper-in- chief "seemed insane," because it was. Obama is showing he can be just as insane as Bush or Cheney on their worst days. This is the only ploy available to presidents terrified of being perceived as a "national security wimp." Either behave like a psychotic or risk being roasted alive by Fox News. Obama will take the psycho path every time to avoid the wrath of the fascist far right, a fate no Republican or Democrat dare risk. Obama still hopes to please Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, not giving a damn what "progressives" think.
But Smith is wrong that the "anti-war people are silent" about this. All he's seeing is that corporate media predictably will not report the protesting, just as they never did during the Bush crime spree. They're in on projecting as much US insanity as the world can bear and refuse to even acknowledge more than a whimper of dissent for all actions related to our ongoing criminal ventures masquerading as a War on Terror. The only people left who still consider Obama "their man" are as deluded as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Limbaugh. These never were "anti-war people." They were merely Obama worshipers, in other words, part of the perennial problem, unable to detect a fraud when he proves his phoniness over and over on a daily basis.
I disagree that the escalation has anything to do with the criticism to be expected from the right wing news media.
I think it is far more likely that the US has suffered a silent coup d'etat and that the MIC is running foreign affairs while they leave the domestic sphere to the bankers. If it ain't so it sure looks like it.
Perhaps there could be a movement to boycott Fox news and any other media that is far right wing and spewing out the psychotic virus that is driving the war machine and the complete injustice that is causing incalculable suffering....murder, rape, theft, and torture! Can anyone comment about this idea? I am Canadian and do not watch any fox programs whatsoever!
Fox News is popular among the upper half of society, the upper 50% who have more wealth then debt. As they want no change and desire our wars of plunder to enhance and protect their plunder, which their conscience tells them is immoral plunder.
Fox news is also popular with the lower segment of society, the truly ignorant who believe everything they are told, who knew nothing about their own interests before they watched Fox News and less about that or anything else after watching it. These are the people who know they don't have the life they ought to have but can't understand why and the right wing, via Fox News, tells them it's all the fault of the "libruls" (aka socialists/communists) rather than their corporatist hero, Reagan and his successors including Clinton and, now, Obama. And they believe it, why not?
It's useless to "boycott" Fox "News" bacause the only Americans who would join such a boycott already never watch it. Loyal Faux News audiences would 1) never even hear about a boycott because they don't listen to any progressives or liberals, and 2) if they did hear of it, they'd be sure to watch even MORE Fox "news". Their entire reason for being is to contradict and defy the truth, wherever it may lie hidden in alternative media or what "liberals" are thinking.
It would be like saying I'm going to boycott Obama, as if that would make him give up his insanity about Afghanistan (and everything else) and do what I want him to do.
There are apparently a grand total of two large industries that are still growing in the US: military and health. Congress, which keep in mind in theory still has the real decision over deploying forces, has and is continuing to demonstrate that they are whores for both of those remaining industries.
Obama has most of the generals telling him to send in more troops, and he has the Congress APPROVING the war. So actually I'm not all that mad at Obama in this particular case, at least compared to other issues. Obama has totally screwed up job creation and health, and he is very much to blame for those failures.
Paid actors only do,
what the corporate rich order them to say and do.
In all of our recent wars, whether we "won" or "lost", we end up 20 or 30 years later in about the same relationship with our enemies as with our allies. Germany, Italy, and Japan were our enemies in WWII. UK, Russia, China, and France were our allies. We "won". But shortly afterwords, China was our enemy in Korea. We "lost" (ie, we did not get our way and were driven back). Next, Vietnam was our enemy, and we "lost" again. Then we "won" the Cold War against Russia. In every case, the "enemy" was a mindless, fanatic, blood thirsty beast deserving of fear and hatred. But 20 years after these wins and loses, all of these nations are our trading partners, all reasonable people, no longer mindless, fanatic, nor blood thirsty. If history tells us anything, it is that by the year 2030 or 2040, we will have reasonable relations with Afghanistan, whether we win or they do. In the stretch of history, these wars that we must "win" or our world collapses, these wars do not matter. There was no need for them.
As I read the comments on this and other recent CD posts, I have to ask myself "Where have all the Obama apologists gone," you know those Joe Hope types that used to rise to the defense of their hero? It's hard to have a "dialogue" on these posts because nowadays the opinions are so unanimously and vociferously against Obama's behavior in issue after issue in public affairs. We find here mostly excellent variations of the same theme of being so appalled by Obama that an article that offers any shred of "hope" that things might get better is met with a cascade of negative response from others, including yours truly. With no real devils left among CD writers and on these comment boards, maybe we'll have "invest" him (her).
"Where have all the Obama apologists gone," you know those Joe Hope types that used to rise to the defense of their hero?"
They're in full retreat mode as we speak. The NJ and VA elections disabled them but don't think that they're out of the woods yet. I still come across them and they're busy trying to find ways to revive the "hope" campaign and they're building their strategies from Dubya's past. We cannot just defeat the Obama and GOP trolls on the boards but in the real world.
I like to read most of the CD posts because some of them are actually better than the article, but having said that; we are mostly preaching to the choir and I do not always agree with different opinions, but I still like to keep an open mind and read them if they are intelligently written even though many of these posts are either ad hominems or non-sequiturs.
"Where have all the Obama apologists gone.."
They're alive and well, Jerry D Rose. Just check out the Kos diaries (basically, those diaries consist of bloggers either rationalizing Obama's decisions or exhorting others to "give him more time").
Also check out Think Progress. Think Progress will put up a blog about something some bad ol' Republican says and almost everyone essentially posts: "Booooo!" Then they write something positive about a Democrat and/or Obama and everyone essentially posts: "Yayyyyy!" It's so sadly clueless.
Talking Points Memo, while still good at breaking some news, seems to have consigned itself to the veal pen, too, in order to gain "access."
The Obama apologists are alive and well, but it does seem to me they're running out excuses for him. It will be interesting to see how they respond to Obama's latest military escalation.
Lefttown: thanks for the reference to the "veal pen" now inhabited by the Obama apologists. Kos, Think Progress, TPM: I've gravitated away from reading these because of the characteristics you describe in them, largely Alter Net as well. They all specialize in "criticism" that would make you think that Bush and Cheney were still in office and Glenn Beck gets more attention than any other "thinker." I guess what's happened is that, as "liberal" comment has "evolved," there is an example of what Herbert Spencer called the "law of evolution" that, with increasing differentiation there comes increasing segregation: like attracts like and the "center wing nuts" who like to call themselves "liberals" have segregated into the veal pen, while those who choose to post comments on CD, Dissident Voice or Black Agenda Report (Counter Punch doesn't take commets) are segregated in another "pen" with whatever derogatory term the center nuts want to call "our" pen. So where does that leave dialogue between those in their respective pens? Rather sparse, I'm afraid.
"So where does that leave dialogue between those in their respective pens?"
You know, I really wonder, too. I think when members of the particular "pens" become disillusioned with the company they keep, they'll gravitate to the pen that allows for more critical thought.
Certainly some people confined in certain pens will become bored with simply cheerleading. Also, when the Obama administration or the Republican Party supports a policy which goes against some bedrock principle, then, I think, members will break out.
The decision to escalate in Afghanistan could be a tipping point. Once they start to question that policy, they'll find themselves questioning other policies they used to defend. I hope so. Then, at least, something good would come out of the tragic situation: we can find common ground and break this stranglehold the authoritarians have on the population.
'maybe we'll have "invest" him (her).'
--"Invest"? I assume you mean "invent".
Ephraim: Yes, I meant "invent" of course. The last time I was asked to "invest" in Obama apologetics was right after the election, when MoveOn was soliciting me to buy "Victory" posters so that MO could carry on its vital work of cheerleading for the Obama "agenda" (doesn't that term sound quaint after all these months of Obama vacillation?. Cartoon in my local paper today has Obama declaring: "I'm going to finish the job in Afghanistan; just as soon as my advisers figure out what the job is.")
Here's what I want to know...why do all the head-in-the-sand Right-Winger-like Liberals like yourself still post on CD? Seems to me you decided before Obama did anything that he was part of "the evil agenda". That's so Right wing. How about some of us at least wanted to give the guy a chance to prove that his rhetoric in the campaign might be just the price to pay to get elected. And that once elected he'd do the right thing? Come on, have an open mind. Now that we've seen the evidence, then Yes, he's no longer someone to support. But just because someone doesn't agree with your estimate 100% doesn't make them "Obamabots defending their hero". Who are you, Glen Beck?
Kane Jeeves: Thanks for giving us a spot of Obama apologetics that I've said has virtually disappeared from CD posts, depriving those of us taking a different position of any chance of dialogue with those of your position. "Come on, give the guy a chance" has been the refrain ever since most of the 2008 campaign and the 2009 Obama presidency. That makes about as much sense (to use the sports analogy of the author of this article) as a sub-par football player saying "come on, coach, give me a chance to play." There might even be a spot more sense in the player's appeal since the "chance to play" is a value that we want everybody wanting to play to get a chance to "participate." When you're thinking of the political leadership of the country with human life and human welfare at the mercy of their actions, you always have to keep your A team on the field, and "give the guy a chance" has no relevance: the "guy" has to earn his leadership position at every minute, and if Obama has "disappointed" (over and over) it's little short of nonsense to invoke "fair play" in giving him a chance that he has NOT earned.
"Ask the Russians". This statement and its interpretation is at the core of the problem.
The example of the Russians is probably exactly what the supporters of continuation/escalation in Afganistan are looking at as proof of U.S. so-called superiority.
Their interpretation is that the Russians were forced out of Afganistan (and the subsequent "fall" of the Soviet Union) BECAUSE of the militaristic intervention of the U.S.
They may concede that previous scheming did largely create the current nightmare, but to the lovers of military force and greedy global domination (NATO included), this is a source of possibilities and strategic gain.
I'm sure there is an (probably unstated) understanding in the strategizing meetings that those of us who seek a more "sensitive" and healing approach to this terrible mess are quaint or simple-minded.
Ron Smith is a conservative talk show host in Baltimore. Though he is far more reasonable than Rush Limbaugh and his clones, he has stuck to the party line for years. It is therefore noteworthy that he has broken with his fellow right wingers in urging that we get out of Afghanistan. This is like Rachel Maddow speaking against the health care public option. For once, I agree with Mr. Smith. He is more in touch with reality than our president.
We must feed the military machine even if it leads directly to bankruptcy. This proves that despite his eloquence Obama is a fool. We are heading for a bitter defeat in Afghanistan and he is too dumb to see this.
Speaking of football, which this article does, on the preview to last night's Giants/Broncos game, the NFL announcer wished a Happy Thanksgiving to the troops that are "bringing democracy" to so many people around the world. One suspects that the average Afghan and the average Iraqi and the average Pakistani would take strong issue with that most misleading statement that so many gullible Americans take to be true. The local natives rarely take kindly to having democracy forced down their throats at the point of a gun and when a 500 lb. bomb is being dropped down upon them.
Ah that "bringing Democracy" lie is intended for domestic consumption anyways...
does he believe he lives in, and actively affects, a democracy, and things are great? otherwise, why would he say that?
On the other hand, this is one of the reasons I don't watch tv...people say things for no other reason but because you're on tv, so you have to say something...
this line probably plays well in certain societal segments...maybe his program's demographic...I sure hate to think young men or women hear that and decide they want to 'help' those troops, without knowing any more about it...
Dubet
I think that you and Green Dragon hit the nail right on the head. The military brass are not stupid. They know, as you say, that their demographic is indeed located on places like the NFL Network, which is where I heard the announcer Bob Papa make his flag waving statement, and other sports driven programs like ESPN and Monday Night Football. Unfortunately I think that so many of the youth of today are so naive and are so ready to believe anything they hear on television that it then drives their testosterone into thinking how exciting it would be to be intimidate some alleged Muslim terrorists in the Middle East with their assault rifles. The military knows that their best chance of signing up recruits for their less than noble cause is to appeal to the emotions of the sports crowd, and especially the teenagers, by calling upon them to perform their patriotic duty, their consciences be damned, by signing up for the military. Of course what these ads and what people like Papa conveniently leave out is that these recruits may end up on the receiving end of an IED and/or that they may have to pull four, five or six multiple tours of deployment in the Middle East.
If only these sports fanatics could have someone ask them what Ralph Nader's father asked his son when he was in school and that was:
"Ralph, did you learn to believe and accept what you were taught or did you learn to think?"
The same thing should apply to these gullible and susceptible young sports fanatics. Someone should ask them:
"Did you readily believe and accept what the military was telling you or did you learn to think by being suspicious of what the military was trying to sell you?"
Monday Night Football is partially sponsored by the military. So is TNT and ESPN pro basketball coverage. So are many other sporting events. They know how to reach young men.
"The anti-war people are silent because he's their man."
Actually, no, and no.
We are not silent; we have never been silent; we have always been speaking out. That the corporate/warmonger media refuse to report the full extent of our protests, phone calls, Congressional visits, letters, emails, postcards, vigils, marches and fasts does NOT mean these acts have not taken place; only that they have been conveniently ignored by the ruling class's main propaganda institution. If a protest takes place but is not reported, does that mean it didn't happen?
Obama has never been "our man" to many of us. Those of us who paid close attention to Obama's voting record did NOT support him. Instead, many of us voted for candidates such as the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney, who truly represented us, and still does.
Demonstrations and protests against Obama's Afghan war eascalation will occur Sunday, Nov. 29, Mon. Nov. 30, Tues. Dec. 1, and Wed. Dec. 2, throughout the U.S.
They will continue as long as warmongers run our government and rule our nation.
The occupation of Afghanistan is to protect fossil-fuel transport routes. No matter how bad it gets, the U.S. has to stay to keep others out. It is economics, not insanity. As long as humans keep wasting energy driving autos, the energy wars will continue.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
The occupation of Afganistan was to re-establish the opium/heroin trade which the Taliban had stopped. Mission accomplished! But..if we allow the Taliban to come back they will ban opium/heroin production again and all would be lost. This production is very valuable to the CIA and to the money laundering banks of New York City. And, yes, we would like to have a pipeline across Afganistan but that is of secondary importance to the drug trade.
I have no doubt if we'd invested all the money we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on developing solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power in a massive program comparable to the Manhatten project and the Apollo project, I'm sure we could by now not need fossil fuels, at least not need to import any.
But then the oil companies wouldn't have made the enormous profits they made the last few years.
Afghanistan is and always has been a fool's game. No country in the history of the world has EVER successfully taken them over. Alexander the Great couldn't do it, the Brits couldn't do it, NO ONE has EVER been able to do it. I don't see why those in power here as so foolish as to think that WE will be any different. We Won't. We will spend untold amounts of money there, we will lose untold numbers of our people, and when they finally kick us out, we will leave with our tails between our legs just like every other country in history has.
This is a stupid, foolish move. We should get OUT asap. We have nothing to offer them that they want, other than our absence. We had NO business attacking them in the first place, they didn't attack us, nor did they actually threaten us. For the Love of God, they are as backward a country as is possible, and our "leaders" are afraid of them? I am ashamed of them all.
Actually Alexander the Great did do it. How? He colonized it. Even then it wiped him out and he died shortly thereafter. Alexander's Greek colonization remained and there was a Greco-Afghani kingdom for centuries. The result? Afghanistan became MORE difficult to conquer.
Another conqueror was also successful in conquering Afghanistan: Genghis Kahn. How did he do it? He slaughtered them. The result? Afghanis became MORE antagonistic to foreigners.
Could we successfully conquer Afghanistan? Of course we could. All we have to do is colonize it and slaughter those who resist us. It would take decades, costs hordes of trillions of dollars and need us to have our number one priority be the Afghani War in a similar way to how we waged WWII. We would need a draft and be ready to have millions of casualties. We would have to jettison any notion of America being a shining city on a hill of justice, fairness, democracy and human rights. Instead we'd promote ourselves as more ruthless than the Mongols and more imperialistic than Alexander or the Romans.
As Mike Wallace would say, "C'mon now". The Chipper's not driving US off a precipice; he's been blackmailed by Cheney/Bush to keep CIA cum Secretary of War Gates, who's actually driving Airbus 1 and dropping Barack; not at the Casa Blanca buck stop, but out the back exit off Montgomery Cliff! And Uncle Bomb blissfully jogs down the Company escalator!
Above is a jokester with a most naive and superficial understanding of gangster capitalism.
Wrong Ron, "President Obama made the war in Afghanistan his war". You make the assumption that this is his decision alone. Nothing could be further from the truth! Because Obomba is just another Bush bushwacker and is nothing more than a house boy for the powerful,elite that really run this governments foreign policy.They let him attend State dinners and let him ride around on Airforce One and get to play President. The real foreign policy in Afghanistan should be named OPERATION TAPI. The proposed pipeline across: Turkmenistan,Afghanistan,Pakistan and India.
Empires just don't have the staying power these days.
“Highest level of incompetence”
A best seller in the 1970’s was UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE, and in it we have a most perfect summation of capitalist management,
“In the grand scheme of things, everyone rises to their highest level of incompetence.”
For when a manager is promoted above those more intelligent, his stupid predicament becomes self-evident to all and he end’s up being supervised by those one-step below.
And so, as our government is run by and for the corporate rich, is this article correct in that the root cause is not greed which we can regulate away, but a stupid predicament beyond our ability to fathom or correct?
For my mental calculations since returning from the Vietnam War has been that good profit have the corporate rich been able to generate for the economy by their “military industrial complex.”
But this year, with the record military budget being $1.4 trillion including interest on military portion of the National Debt, absolutely nothing but more glory for those on top can ever be realized in war over such a bunch of worthless hills, steep valleys and barren mountains.
“In the grand scheme of things, everyone rises to their highest level of incompetence.”
I believe this actually comes from "The Peter Principle". It's so true, no matter where it originated.
His Excellency, The Great Obama, is an utterly conventional person. He is a straight apple, a square, a boy scout, a yuppie. Forget about his supposed intelligence; in this case it counts for absolutely nothing. They run it up the flagpole, he jumps to his feet and salutes. He truly believes the USA is some avatar of greatness in a lowly, corrupt and violent world. Beyond the homicidal math of politics at the highest national levels that maintains if you don't escalate the Republicans will have you for lunch, The Great Obama truly BELIEVES. No skepticism, no hesitation, no nothing. He goes to West point; he sees the young cadets surrounded by Gringo flags; he weeps. He takes a deep breath and, echoing LBJ during one of his trips to Vietnam, tells the newly minted second louies, "Nail the coonskin to the wall!"
What a contemptible horse's ass! Anybody out there planning to vote for this wretch in 2012?
As an example of how mainstream the [alleged] agent of change is, it should be pointed out how disdainful Obama has been in the past of the 1960s apparently believing that that time period was too radical for his capitalistic mind set. Like almost all Democrats Obama may appear to offer some cosmetic changes but nothing that would actually alter or challenge the status quo as evidenced by his eagerness to placate Wall Street and the for-profit insurance companies and his desire to maintain more militarism against third world countries.
The rich rulers would rather die in cosmic destruction than let you be equal to them.
"The anti-war people are silent because he's their man. "
You are stunningly wrong. These are not "anti-war people", these are simply "democrats" who POSE and THINK they're "anti-war".
Its simply more or less a fashion statement for them.
----------------------
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp.
Neoconservatism is NOT partisan.
fpteditors writes:
"The occupation of Afghanistan is to protect fossil-fuel transport routes. No matter how bad it gets, the U.S. has to stay to keep others out. It is economics, not insanity."
The statement is historically myopic. Prior to 9/11 the Taliban, which had been recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by its immediate neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (and perhaps others) was in direct negotiations with the United States over a pipeline deal. At that time Russia, China, and India had little influence over the Taliban government, while Pakistan could certainly have wanted a pipeline to Karachi. In other words, the U.S. most likely had the greatest soft power leverage at that time.
Then came 9/11 and in retaliation Bush II bombed and invaded the country claiming the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden and al Quaida. In other words, instead of going after some fish in a fish tank, Dubya blew up the tank. Chaos followed.
Then our newly-minted "War President" Bush, who had the attention span of a gnat, decided to invade Iraq and started diverting troop strength out of Afghanistan for the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq, leaving what amounted to a skeleton crew in Afghanistan. Now our new "War President" is unsurging in Iraq for a surge in Afghanistan.
Whatever one may think of the Taliban as a socio-anthropological entity, they were the only organizing principle in Afghanistan capable of creating a real central government; people knew it, and that was their primary attraction---to end the deadly civil wars and tribal conflicts that had been raging for years after the Soviets were driven out ("Charlie Wilson's War"...). The Taliban have been systematically demonized by the MSM; the fact is they were trying to become a legitimate government and they were trying to act like one, but Dubya would have none of that. Instead he made them enemies of the state.
If Obama sends in more troops it will be as much for American domestic politics as for anything else, so he won't be seen, as the article says, as a "national-security wimp."
That's Bush's gift to America and the world: a gift that just keeps on taking.
As for the TAPI pipeline suggestion, it strikes me that this really is a fool's errand. To be secure at all it would have to be largely underground, virtually impossible in that terrain, while above ground it would always be a high-value target. It may always have been Cheney and Big Oil's pipedream as it were.
As for opium...I sure could use a pipebowl right now!
-30-
Shortly before 9/11, the Afgani government that the USA was negotiating with, AKA "The Taliban", had decided to go with the Russian offer, and turned down the US offer.
The invasion plan was started at that point..That is why they could invade so soon after 9/11.