Ex_Mil8 saidThe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really do not bear comparison. The Iraq war was begun by Bush (aided and abetted by Blair) on a false premise (i.e. the illusive 'weapons of mass destruction').
The war in Afghanistan was justified. In the wake of 9/11, the initial objective for the NATO action in Afghanistan was to go after and eliminate Al Qaeda (Clearly jockfever thinks AQ and the Taliban are one and the same. They are not). In that respect, it has been a success. AQ is no longer in Afghanistan. Latterly, however, the task of preparing the Afghan police and armed forces to go it alone, has proven less successful. It is a war no one can win and the long-term solution for a stable Afghanistan is probably going to lie in accommodating the Taliban in governing parts of the country de jure (they already 'govern' some of it de facto).
Meanwhile, NATO forces will be out of there by late 2014. If the best military minds in the US have not been able to find a way of winning the war in Afghanistan, what chance do the armchair generals of RJ have?
Well stated. Unfortunately the people of Afghanistan will be forced to revert back to 7th-Century Islamic culture.
But that's OK, let them slip back into a Middle Ages existence, one less international player on the world stage the US must worry about, other than through terrorism. If the Afghan people themselves cannot deal with this, I don't see why the US should. The only reason we went there was to defeat al Qaida, and if they have a resurgence, we can just send cruise missiles at them.