good read:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Zjg...TI=&w=MA==

Quote:As President Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should remember that most of the conventional pessimism about Afghanistan is only half-truth.

Remember the mantra that the region is the “graveyard of empires,” where Alexander the Great, the British in the 19th century, and the Soviets only three decades ago inevitably met their doom?

In fact, Alexander conquered most of Bactria and its environs (which included present-day Afghanistan). After his death, the area that is now Afghanistan became part of the Seleucid Empire.

Centuries later, outnumbered British-led troops and civilians were initially ambushed, and suffered many casualties, in the first Afghan war. But the British were not defeated in their subsequent two Afghan wars between 1878 and 1919.

The Soviets did give up in 1989 their nine-year effort to create out of Afghanistan a Communist buffer state — but only because the Arab world, the United States, Pakistan, and China combined to provide the Afghan mujahideen resistance with billions of dollars in aid, not to mention state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.

While Afghans have been traditionally fierce resistance fighters and made occupations difficult, they have rarely for long defeated invaders — and never without outside assistance.

Other myths about Afghanistan abound.

Is the country ungovernable? No more so than any of the region’s other rough countries. After the founding of the modern state in 1919, Afghanistan enjoyed a relatively stable succession of constitutional monarchs until 1973. The country was once considered generally secure, tolerant, and hospitable to foreigners.

Did we really take our eye off the “good” war in Afghanistan to fight the optional bad one in Iraq? Not quite. After our brilliant campaign to remove the Taliban in 2001, the relatively stable Karzai government saw little violence until 2007. Between 2001 and 2006, no more than 100 American soldiers were killed in any given year.

In fact, American casualties increased after Iraq became quiet — as Islamists, defeated in Iraq’s Anbar province, refocused their efforts on the dominant Afghan theater.

Is Afghanistan the new Vietnam? Hardly. In the three bloodiest years, 2007 through 2009 so far, the United States has suffered a total of 553 fatalities — tragic, but less than 1 percent of the 58,159 Americans killed in Vietnam. What is astounding is the ability of the U.S. military to inflict damage on the enemy, protect the constitutional government, and keep our losses to a minimum.
Our military is the most experienced in both counterterrorism and counterinsurgency warfare in the world. The maverick savior of Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, now oversees operations in the Mideast and Central Asia. His experienced lieutenant, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is a successful veteran of the worst fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike past foreign interventions, our U.N.-approved aim is not to create a puppet state, but a consensual government able to defend itself against the Taliban and al-Qaeda — while preventing more strikes against the United States.

With Iraq relatively stabilized, jihadists have no choice but to commit their resources to prevent a second defeat. Meanwhile, Pakistan at last is cracking down on terrorist enclaves.
---

DOES NOT FIT DEFEATIST NARRATIVE! PLEASE DELETE!

Nevertheless, what exactly is our current objective there?

http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/1...d-just-war

I'm not seeing any clear reason to remain.

As VDH puts it, noting its the same war, different battleground, that we fought in Anbar....

Quote:Unlike past foreign interventions, our U.N.-approved aim is not to create a puppet state, but a consensual government able to defend itself against the Taliban and al-Qaeda — while preventing more strikes against the United States.

With Iraq relatively stabilized, jihadists have no choice but to commit their resources to prevent a second defeat. Meanwhile, Pakistan at last is cracking down on terrorist enclaves.

or as the War Resolution stated:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terro...3.enr.html

Quote:SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The whole problem with modern warfare is people not understanding the who, how and why of it. There is no Al-Qaedastan where all members live, in uniform, to focus on. There are rogue Outlaw regimes(many of which we have been at War With technically for decades) that Harbor these Jihadist in the shadows and sometimes in the open.

Vietnam wasn't really a war against the North Vietnamese so much as a chosen battle vs. the Soviets(who were funding them) and Global exapansion of Communism. I would've preferred they chose Cuba instead, however JFK botched that one pretty good.

I see Colson makes the same mistake(along with what he said about iraq) in stating the graveyard narrative without context, which is why this article by VDH is sorely needed. Too bad we don't have a media worth a flip.

Quote:But yet another question arises: Do we have a reasonable chance of succeeding? There’s a reason Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires—from Alexander the Great to the British Empire to the Soviet Union.

If we do not have a reasonable chance that our rightly intentioned, just cause will succeed, then it would be unjust to send more troops.

So what’s the best thing we can do? Join me in praying for President Obama. May God lead him to a decision that will protect our country, help our troops who have sacrificed so much, and advance the cause of a just peace.

It will be interesting, especially after the elections and likely coming blowout in 2010. Obama is obviously playing politics with his decision, trying to figure out how to do this politically with his base. Especially if he can't give them ObamaCare of some variety.

This was the "good war" he campaigned as a hawk on after all. It'll be interesting to see if he moderates to stay in power, how his far-left base will react.