My last reply to you was in context of some of the opinions you shared in previous posts. I would not be interested in rehashing them if it wasn't that they reflect some of the (in my view) core illusions which underpin the mainstream paradigm when discussing the topic of Afghanistan (or for that matter any other foreign policy issue).

Starting with one of your previous post below exulting in length the noble intentionality and precision by which the US military plans its missions, in my eyes already displays a fundamental bias and wishful thinking. (PS Ever heard of any country which claims the opposite?).

An extension of this same popular mythology is that the US (or the west for that matter) are actually interested in promoting human rights and committed to using this as a primary measure in their pursuit of securing their national interests. If you would have to choose the core bedtime fable we lull ourselves to sleep with (literally) it has got to be this one. The whole notion of precision bombing plays in this respect an important propaganda function.

On a side note it is interesting to have witnessed the rather clinical discussion about “shock and awe” as a fundamental new way of waging war (promoted in the same vein as being more “civilian friendly”). What is really unremarkable but shouldn't be is that never any reference was made to its historic precedent; the “Blitzkrieg”. The difference is the emphasis the Germans made on the tactical execution and saw no need to mask it with a humanistic PR line to sell it to a lollipop hungry citizenry.

The suggestion that we cant push democracy on others no hard we try (more of the “us is good”) is the preferred storyline and with good reason. Looking at the actual policies and foreign policy legacy of the US (i.e. West) in supporting either directly or indirectly the most brutal regimes if it was believed American interests were best served, the emerging picture becomes a lot less pleasant. Democracy being the war cry and moral cover for our foreign policies.

Interestingly as part of the ongoing fairy tale we talk about the noble prince who was bestowed with the mission of slaying the big bad monster in a far far away country as decreed by the council of noble kings. This elaborate theater play works great until low behold there is actual resistance to what the king of kings decrees who subsequently simply declares the council irrelevant as done in the case of Iraq. To pull out the UN legitimicy card is just one more indication of not being able to see past the smoke and mirrors of the artificially manufactured truth.

One way of framing the Afghanistan discussion is according to the preferred “our intentions are noble” myth from which the “now that we are there…..” line of reasoning makes perfect sense.

An other way of looking at the American (foreign) involvement is within the context of its historical pursuit of strategic political dominance in order to control access to important resources, irregardless of human rights considerations or access (let alone control) to these same resources by the population of the contries in question. (There has been much written on the subject but one of the most chilling and honest insights has to be “The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski.)

The rational to keep (US) forces in Afghanistan because we cant leave is I more self delusional reasoning to avoid having to deal with the real motivations and consequences of American policy choices. This argument is intrinsically connected to what drives these initial policy choices in the first place and one is simply the logical extension of the other.

My comparison to Rwanda, Kosovo, and Afghanistan (I didn’t mention Iraq) was not out of ignorance. Poorly worded, yes. I was not trying to make a comparison but referring to the problem of non-action among the international community. We (the United States and other nations sanctioned by the United Nations) invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban who were providing training grounds for terrorist organizations. This was an action agreed upon by the international community. This was probably not the best way to try and attack a non-state entity but it happened. So we are now there. The government is a wreck because we made it that way, but that does not mean we should leave just because it is difficult. If NATO forces leave now, the government will most likely fail and the nation will become worse than before. I know we have not gone about this the right way. I wonder if it should have ever been attempted. (But we could “what if?” this for a hundred years and we would still end up where we are now.) One nation telling another nation how to run things typically does not work. It didn’t work for communism and it will not work for democracy. In President Obama’s State of the Union speech he never mentioned spreading democracy like his predecessor. That was a welcome change for many here in America and probably for everyone around the world. People cannot be forced into a democracy; they must develop it for themselves. I think we must stay in Afghanistan, not to make it a democracy. We need to help them provide security for their people so they can figure out what will work best for them. If we leave, the people of Afghanistan will not have time to figure out what form of government will work best for them. The Taliban will figure it out for them.

Facts really do matter and I base my opinion on facts and reality. I agree with you that terrorist do not attack because they are jealous of our freedom. Thank you for your advice, but I already read and study critical accounts on many nation’s foreign policy. This problem is not unique to the United States. Additionally, I have traveled to many places that have had U.S. foreign policy “pushed” on them and I have also been to many places where U.S. foreign policy has been requested and warmly received by the majority of the nation. (I didn’t ask everyone if they approved of the U.S. but the overall response was positive)

My question is: Since we acted in our own national interest in Afghanistan by attempting to deny Al-Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan, don’t we have a moral obligation to remain in Afghanistan and help provide security (since we made it un-secure) for them to form a government that can provide security and stability for the Afghan people without the assistance or influence of other nations?

I like this blog because it is challenging us to rethink our role in Afghanistan. If rethinking means just leaving, I do not think that is the right course of action. I think the President and his advisors have looked at the options and decided that a failed Afghanistan will not help the Afghan people nor the rest of the world. I think it is in our national interest and every nation’s interest (especially Afghanistan’s) that the Afghan people become capable of governing themselves.

The comparison you make between Rwanda / Kosovo and Iraq / Afghanistan is either the result of sheer ignorance or inability to let go of an emotional investment in the “we are noble” myth.

If the US actions were really driven by humanitarian motives instead of protecting “American interests” (ever heard of that term?) you might want to ask yourself some additional questions.

- Why did the US support Saddam both militarily as well as economically until no longer deemed in “American interest”
- No problem with the Kurdish genocide committed by the Saddam regime except for the usual verbal condemnation but happily continuing supporting him (might want to read up on who your friend Rumsfeld was shaking hands with)
- After the first invasion by King Bush I and encouraging a popular revolt against Saddam, the open rebellion was brutally squashed with no support forth coming from the West.
- In spite being a brutal dictatorship (of which the US has and still supports plenty of in the world today) Iraq was a highly functioning society and relatively stable >> spare me the insult of having to pull out the statistics you yourself can easily find if you are so inclined

Do facts really matter if no matter what, you have a story (and a good one for that matter) you cannot let go off? You really believe 9-11 was committed (or all the worldwide anti-American sentiment) by people jealous of our freedom according to Prince Bush the second?

Take the red pill and start reading some critical account of US foreign policy the last 50 years or keep on drinking the coolaid. Your choice.

If you seriously w