If you've ever been to the ghan, read this.

[J Wolfsberger]

We have attempted to define this problem in our terms and solve it in our way from the very beginning and we need to own that reality.

Bob, I've thought for some time that our approach to Afghanistan (and Iraq) has been to "nation build" mini-me versions of the United States. Is that you're point?

[Bob's World]

Bob, I've thought for some time that our approach to Afghanistan (and Iraq) has been to "nation build" mini-me versions of the United States. Is that you're point?

Not just in form of governance, but in form of security as well.

The United States has become so ideological that we over-react anytime we face a competitor that adheres to any belief system different than our own. So much so that we have woven it into our National Security Strategy and declared it as a vital interest. So if we can convert those governments not like ours to be more like ours, that must make us safer. ( This misses the key point of "if we convert." This 'logic' makes sense if these governments all come to this decision of their own free will and with a broad consensus from their own populaces; but falls apart rapidly when such conversions are forced through openings made by our military and executed by governments of our own adoption or making).

Second, our Military is so full of its own "rightness" as the best way to do things that we set out, at least on the conventional side, to create security forces that largely mirror our own. Never mind that the security threat in Afghanistan frustrated both the Soviet and NATO militaries, thereby proving as conclusively as we can prove anything that a lesser, mini-me version would have no hope of dealing with the same. The security situation in Afghanistan calls for an Afghan approach. First, remove the causation of the Western solution for governance and security and allow an appropirate local model for both to emerge, then simply work with whatever that is to help it be as succssful as possible within the culture and economy of their own system.

But, we are a captive of our fears; and those fears are exaggerated by our miscasting of the nature of both the threat and the nature of what provides that threat sanctuary.

On a larger scale, the US enjoyed a brief window of hegemony. Congratulations, but please, such conditions are always temporary. Yet now we flail at any and everything that appears to facilitate the natural rebalancing to a world made up of many regional powers, each with its own spheres of influence, their own interests, and own ideological approaches to how they do business. Rather than expend ourself attempting to keep everyone else down, we'd be better served by conserving our strength and influence while simply working to shape that rebalancing so that it does not errupt into a major drama such as happened with WWI or II. And in that larger scale, Afghanistan and AQ really are not all that important.

[Mark O'Neill]

Well stated Bob!

[Bob's World]

I have a bad habit of saying what I think is going on and what I think needs to be done about it; rather than what I think people want to hear.

We all need to appreciate that there is tremendous energy and inertia from a wide range of physical as well as psychological forces that keep the policies of a powerful nation such as the US on a certain current path. I certainly do, though admittedly, I am frequently surprised as the range of stakeholders dedicated to preserving the status quo, even when voicing loudly the need for change.

I have heard that a single man could stand in front of a vast herd of stampeding North American Bison, and that the herd would split naturally, thundering by leaving said man unharmed. Perhaps this happened on occasion, but I suspect most were simply trampled into a mash of muddy dust.