"How a Revolution Saved an Empire" (NYT, 5 July)

[Tacitus]

... do what the British and Russians were never able to do over an extended period of time. What that SF Group did was nothing less than historic.

I've always gotten the impression that the British crown jewel in the region was India. India was what mattered, and what they wanted for their empire. Did they really see much of value in Afghanistan? Was Afghanistan only significant because it contained seemingly ungovernable warlike tribes which threatened Pakistan (which was a part of India at that time)? Just wondering if trying to rule the Afghans was really the goal there. More likely that in London they viewed the place as a buffer state between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia.

As for the Russians, I guess they were able to grab control of Kabul and install a puppet regime there, but not much beyond that. The view from the Kremlin might be that we have accomplished about the same thing. Namely, a mayor friendly to our interests to in Kabul, with not much authority beyond the city limits. Long dead British generals and retired Soviet commanders wouldn't necessarily view that as having accomplished mission impossible.

Now building a stable Afghan state with recognized authority over all the country, with ultimtely loyalty to the head of state, at peace with those around it. Accomplish THAT and we'd really have something to crow about to the old British Empire and USSR. That would be a strategic victory. As it currently stands, I bet if you withdrew American combat forces from Aghanistan, the Taliban would be in charge in Kabul before you knew it.