gmat:

A lot of "them" are good old liberal interventionist Democrats, too. They just use a different vocabulary, "nation-building" for example.

Obama thinks we can "fight terrorism" by nation building, by turning Afghanistan into a place that is inhospitable to the likes of al qaida. But what does that mean in practice? Put US troops (or NATO, whatever) on the ground to provide rule of law, without which no nation building is possible.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people. Obama, 8/17/09

I see from your other posts that you're knowledgeable in this area, probably much more so than me.

I've never been to Afghanistan, but my understanding is that eliminating the ability of anyone to operate a "terrorist training camp" in that country would be completely impossible. I mean, depending upon what particular terrorist acts you wanted to carry out, you could pretty much "train" terrorists in any large basement, or in some clearing or gully other remote location. Most of the "training" that terrorists would have to undergo probably involves learning rather than running through boot-camp style obstacle courses.

It's become clear to me that when violence, occupation, and empire-building become an end unto themselves, "eliminating terrorist training grounds" is just the excuse. Or, rather, one of many excuses, but one that (for whatever reason) has stuck.