(1) Human nature is dependent on the conditions of its context. War in any form is a horrible thing, but it must be understood on its own terms. The "shock value" of war needs to be stripped away to expose the foundations of conflict, which is the only issue which requires addressing. When placed within this context, all of our values must be reevaluated. If we see ourselves and the enemy within this prism, we will be must better situated to meet and destroy him.

(2) Ideas are subordinate to political interest as instruments of power politics. Principles are dangerous and get peopled killed for no good reason. Everyone is ideologically promiscuous - even the Army. What matters most is a favorable outcome; the means are relevant to the extent they influence political objects sought from the conflict. This is why the US Government can give Karzai bags of cash while talking about democracy with a straight face.

(3) Political power in some form is the object of all relevant actors. Nobody cares about building agricultural ditches through remote villages or political transparency in a mountain frontier district. Without power, principles don't matter -- so it's important to establish alliances with credible stakeholders. Karzai may not be an ideal partner, but who is the alternative?

(4) State actors are not monolithic and many decisions depend upon the resolution of internal factional struggle. The legacy of Afghanistan is it's historically weak central government in comparison to the outlying political powers in the South and West. Kabul does not command absolutely fealty from these provinces, and the Taliban is only the most recent manifestation of the lack of political control. But it goes much further with the complex intersection of economic and political interests which run amok. This inevitably leads to contradictions -- like Karzai condemning and restricting US military operations while simultaneously negotiating for an extended US military presence in the country.

(5) Conflict is determined by the position of the actors in relation to one another, rather than from some inherent conflictive nature. Our adversaries are not political drunkards looking for the next street fight -- they're smart, calculating opponents looking for every advantage. It was 20 years ago the Taliban was in negotiations with the US government for economic concessions. That prospect is far off now, and it will be a long hard road to untangle the US and the Taliban from one other. But the point is that there's a way forward, for better or worse, and there is a political relationship in which neither party is antagonizing the other. At some point, neither party will gain from continued conflict and it will end.

(6) Rational actors may be locked into a particular course irregardless of desire for it. Because of the presence of multiple, contradicting interests, there are also multiple, contradicting rationalities driving decision making, and this is compounded by the factional nature of governing and politics. So which course of action does someone choose? It's irrational for the United States to set an arbitrary date to leave Afghanistan. But is it irrational within the greater context of America's political and economic condition?