The "Good" War

Obama has made it clear that he considers Afghanistan to be more of a problem than Iraq and has pledged to draw down American forces in Iraq in order to pursue al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. His solution: more troops and extended commitment to a war that most Americans still support. After all, "they" attacked us. Remember? Well, actually, it was their friends but that's close enough.

Never mind that Afghanistan is a place hostile to foreign intervention with a geography that that favors guerrilla tactics, the graveyard of empires. Instead, Obama will dive in, to build something that looks good to Americans that the locals don't really want and will in all likelihood resist. Not a good foundation for sustainable policy in my view.

But don't take my word for it. Tom Englehardt offers a very sober analysis of America's precarious situation in Asia Times. So does Jim Lobe. Robert Dreyfuss offered a similar analysis in The Nation which also carried a good article about the highly diverse forces that Americans call "the" Taliban.

If all that left-wing analysis doesn't convince you, then read about a month's worth of posts at Ranger Against War. Ranger brings a tactical and operational perspective that demonstrates wyhy Afghanistan is likely to be the tarpit of American ambition.

Trading a bad war that Americans support for an even worse wart that Americans no longer support is NOT an effective solution. Why in the hell do Americans not understand that.

Oh, right. Everbody is watching television.