History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I'm sorry you feel way. You will be missed. I can't promise an "extraordinary" post that will draw you back in, but here's my take.
If the policy of trying to conquer a clan based, tribal, and drug-trade dominated society like Afghanistan, was doltish under Bush, it is even more doltish to extend it.
Obama had a chance to disengage but chose instead to plunge even deeper.
I'll give Obama credit in one respect: he has been fairly consistent and honest on Afghanistan. During the election campaign, his main complaint against Bush's policy was not that it was inept but that Bush had not devoted enough resources to the fight. In effect, in 2008, Obama was already supporting more deeper involvement. Now...he is carrying out this election promise. Thus it is "his" war now.
You're right, David, Obama did commit to trying to bring our involvement in Central Asia to some resolution that doesn't make the US look like feckless dolts. That we could have had such a resolution sometime over the last seven years, had the previous administration not been such feckless dolts, seems irrelevant to you.
Barring some unforseen extraordinary circumstance, this will be my last comment on L&P.
What do you mean? Obama has embraced this war. He did so during the campaign and is new sending in even more troops. It is "his" war by choice. Blame him, not us.
Honestly, David. I thought you had a bit more intellectual integrity than that.
Between the LewRockwellists and Buchananites, this blog really has gone downhill.