I’m reminded that Sir Walter Scott once likened Afghanistan to the Scottish Highlands. Subduing those gave the British headaches…until they started playing clan against clan, then hammered the survivors every time they rebelled against the central government.

Well…I think part of the problem is that the culture in that area may have a very negative view of the western world. From my own experiences in conversing with colleagues from Pakistan (from where the Taliban originated), I find that a lot of their views are generally in opposition to western European and US foreign policy.

That, coupled with the huge economic divide (they exist in poverty while we have a higher living standard), and the racial divide (they are all coloured while the west is mostly western European), and the religious divide (Christianity spread westward while Islam spread east, relative to Israel’s geographic location) well, let’s just say the opportunities for distrust and disagreement go up considerably.

So I think it will be a long time before we win over the hearts of the Afghan people. But we will win them over. Just like the Middle East.

I thought in World War 2, Japan and the US were officially at war.

I thought the US was not at war with Afghanistan, but was in Afghanistan assisting their internal security forces in apprehending Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents?

I just read where Karzai is overtly saying he wants us out instead of helping the effort. Just like Japan forfeited it’s rights on Dec. 7, 1941, Afghanistan forfeited it’s rights on 9/11/01. Also similiar to a felon giving up their rights when they decide to take another person’s rights by force.

Afghanistan’s future is very much in our hands since we are writing the checks or rather giving them the suitcases full of cash as Karzai also recently admitted. He also admitted he receives a few million in hard currency from Iran routinely and they certainly are not on our side. Make no mistake we will determine the future of Afghanistan in the same way we have done with Japan. We did write both of their constitions and we will not leave no matter what the defeated govt. thinks unless we decide to quit and go home. Our future is very much in our own hands. We are not required by any law to just turn the other cheek when we get hit. In fact I would argue it is our responsiblity to future generations to make the world tolerable or die trying just as we did in WWII. We can’t tolerate having our Pacific Fleet wiped out and we cannot tolerate our financial hub be wiped out either. Just as a murderer will do it again if you let him walk free we shouldn’t be letting any country that attacks us learn they can get away with the passage of time. The attacks were historical and the consequences should be utterly final for any aggressor to the United States.

I believe there was some debate during WWII about requiring a complete unconditional surrender. I’m sure if we wanted an earlier end to the war we could’ve negotiated some less than unconditional surrender for the sake of thousands of soldiers on both sides but we didn’t…why do you think that was? Where has that kind of thinking gone?

Matt — the WWII analogy is inaccurate. Japan had pretty much pissed off all of their neighbors — and pretty easy to bomb a single country, when the Japanese had no where else to turn, as our Navy had pretty much bottled them up. Not that the Japanese were planning to go anywhere else to begin with. I recall that we didn’t go after the Emperor (but could have).

This is a lot different, and more complicated. The stakes are (I know I will prob get some push back on this) — less than the threat in WWII. If they were anywhere near the same — would not Pres Bush have called for a total united effort? Not just use our current military force, but start up the draft, convert commercial industry to war footing, etc.?

Perhaps it is easier now to bomb a single country due to overseas basing of the US air force as well as the US having the only real blue water navy around…with the only real usable aircraft carriers around that regularly patrol the world’s oceans?

It’s highly improbable Iran or Syria or even North Korea would attempt to fire a nuclear missile at the US. They would essentially be wiping themselves off the map, and there’s no guarantee the limited salvo they could muster could get through US ballistic missile defenses…

AQ is tough because they are not a nation and are not officially supported by anyone…so one has to find where there resources are hiding and work with local authorities to take them out. If the US arbitrarily starts unilateral military action against many different states suspected of having AQ militants then the US could end up being at war with too many countries.

AQ is already greatly reduced due to the US taking out their training facilities in Afghanistan. If the CIA continues to successfully discover and shut down their money transfer operations they will eventually die off.