Thank you Anne Applebaum, for once again stating some hard truths pretty clearly.

Despite public approval for the war in Afghanistan in the immediate post-911 period (which was not only commonly held but deserved, since after all the US had been attacked by terrorists under the protection of the Taliban government) the 'allies' of the US, that is, the NATO participants, have never really had much stomach for the war, and preferred to think of it as some sort of development project. The Iraq war provided them with a giant red herriing to slap American around with. Hence we have Germany, Canada, and it seems, sadly, Britain, bailing out in the middle of a war.

Every war is ugly and has tragic loss of life, but that is the deal, I am afraid. The US public is unfortunately once again getting infected by the defeatism proferrered our European-leaning MSM leaders, who respond with a viseral and laughably 'over civilized' revulsion to any war where any lives are actually lost. Oddly enough, this is an opportunity for Obama to have his finest hour -- by making the case for continuing the fight, and for not letting the Taliban and Al-Queda back to run a country of 38 million impovershed people. Even with the war raging, Afghanistan is actually a force for stability in the region -- especially compared to the effect that a collapse back into pre-911 barbarism will have on Pakistan and the other neighboring states. It was once said that only Nixon could go to China -- so this is an excellent opportunity for Obama to make it clear that Afghanistan is a war that needs to be seen through -- by the US alone, if necessary.

As for our NATO allies, well, the hell with them. Obama was elected on vision of a more multi-lateralist world -- and now the Europeans are managing to show, yet again, that they can't be counted on which the chips are down, the inevitable result of which will be more unlateralism on the part of the US. It isn't just the 'bad' wars that Europeans shy away from. There isn't much we can do about that, or for the Europeans, except to provide a decent example of how not to run away in the middle of difficult fight.

Bin Laden was an Arab from Saudi Arabia and thus, of course, not a member of the Afghan-Pakistani area group the Taliban. He was a leader of Al Qaeda and yes he did declare his group at war with the USA. The Taliban did support Al Qaeda.

This is similar to the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Ruby Ridge guys or that Koresh person in Waco, all groups at war with the USA, but of course they aren't really wars. There are many people in the US who supported these groups and the things they stood for, similar to the Taliban's relationship to Al Qaeda. But somehow our approch is a bit different when the people involved are Americans.

We are reluctant to anger people here with improper, unnecessary or excessive actions toward these groups. But somehow the distance, racial or religious difference allow a measure of impunity with regard to actions in other nations, especially Muslim ones.

Bsharp, what the hell are you talking about? Bin Laden was purposely given protection by the Taliban after he was kicked out of Sudan, and they continued to harbor him after the embassy bombings and then again after 9/11 (when they sent their condolences with the sarcastic refrain "We feel your pain"). What do you mean our "approach" is different regarding the Taliban -- you make no sense at all -- the SLA, the Ruby Ridge guys, or Koresh were NOT being harbored by the US government -- or any government at all. The difference is between a state that allows a resident to commit acts of war in another state with impunity, and a state that is trying to arrest/capture/punish criminals in their own country without tramping on their constitutional rights. Don't you SEE the difference?

Besides there weren't "many" people in the US who supported any of those nutjob groups you list. If anyone supported them by assisting in acts of 'insurrectionary violence' such as, for example, shooting a housewife to death at a Crocker bank branch in Carmichael, California, those persons were prosecuted by the government. See, that's the government's job.

I'll note that the Taliban was not really a state as is normally defined. I think only two nations in the world recognized them as the legitimate government in Afghanistan. And we know they didn't even control all of the nation. They were willing to harbor Al Qaeda but I hardly think they had aspirations of invading the USA. They mostly wanted to break 2000 year old statues of Buddha and make women cover up. Until 9/11 made them a convenient scapegoat, it was only liberals and feminists and such in the USA that had any beef with the Taliban.

Ah well, I think it is fairly well demonstrated that FreeTrader's philosophy operates on a double standard. Your basic, "it's okay when WE do it, because....blah blah blah"

The Cuban people would certainly welcome a declaration of war by the Cuban dictatorship on the US. Having its worthless and murderous dictatorship defeated by the US and replaced with a democracy would be the best thing that could happen to that unlucky country. If Cuba hurries up and declares war soon, we might get a chance to see Casto (or maybe both brothers) shot for their crimes against the Cuban people.

As for Chavez, he is too busy killing protesters to bother with an actual war. His cronies have their hands full bashing in the heads of his domestic opposition. His dictatorship has not yet reached Castro-like perfection.

Boy Bsharp, I sometimes find your weird take on things amusing, but you outdone yourself that time. You are really unhinged.

Freetrader you say, "The Cuban people would certainly welcome a declaration of war by the Cuban dictatorship on the US. Having its worthless and murderous dictatorship defeated by the US and replaced with a democracy would be the best thing that could happen to that unlucky country."

Erm..is this something the Cuban people told you? Or did you just figure it out in your own house by doing some REALLY deep thinking?

You decide the thoughts and future of 11.4 million people you don't even know. And I am the one who is "unhinged"?

(p.s. which government is more murderous, the USA's or Cuba's? Shall we do a body count...? You know you won't like the answer we will get)

When WE leave, as we must at some point, THEY will still be there, as they must always be. Nation building is a failed policy and a false ideal. We need an alternative to boots on the ground and drones raining on villages. And alternatives do exist. A failure of imagination and strategic rigor mortis keeps us from pursuing these alternatives.

but WHAT is the alternative?

You are responding to the wrong thread. I assume we are dropping our earlier discussion about the Taliban being 'scapegoats'?

Secondly, the issue raised by Nutjob was whether Cuba would be justified in invading the US. This is not a serious question and does not address any issue we were discussing. I gave the answer Nutjob deserved, although my statements are pretty accurate.

Thirdly, I don't recall that when the US changes governments, they line up the opposition and execute them. So it is pretty safe to assume that the US is not a 'murderous' government.

Finally, knock it off Bsharp. You do this every time -- you troll around, make some outrageous statement, then when your BS gets called, you completely change the topic (really, what the hell does Cuba have to do with Afghanistan?). If you want to talk about Afghanistan, fine. Otherwise, you are just being an annoying troll.

There are alternatives. I suggest Rory Stewart’s piece [GO HERE] in the London Review of Books as an excellent place to start if you are ready to give up on nation building as the default American policy in the fight against terrorism.

Thank you for providing the link. His arguments are pretty powerful, and, as he notes, counterintuitive, and I agree it is important to be clear about the intent of our goals and the resources we are willing to use to achieve those goals. Stewart does not advocate withdrawal, but a different strategy with much less of a 'footprint', and, of course, presumed cost in terms of lives of coalition soldiers lost. In a way this is reminiscent of the debate about Iraq around 2006, when the medium term strategy was either i.) pull out of the cities and let the Iraqis learn to 'stand up for themselves' or ii.) work harder to secure the Iraqi population. In Iraq it was clear that the people rushing into the vacuum would not be our liking, so ii.) turned out to be the right answer, Stewart believes, with some justification I think, that neither Al Qeada nor the Taliban would be in any position to 'take over' Afghanistan if we shrank our footprint. I can't say that he is absolutely right, but that is certainly a strong alternative view.

Freetrader2: "Stewart believes, with some justification I think, that neither Al Qeada nor the Taliban would be in any position to 'take over' Afghanistan if we shrank our footprint. I can't say that he is absolutely right, but that is certainly a strong alternative view."

One reason I find this argument appealing is because it extracts us from the hubris of operating as the chess master of the world. Stewart at least understands that the "board" of Afghanistan is one of complex dimensions that we cannot master with any certainty, let alone in perpetuity. Why are domestic political issues always about limits while foreign policy initiatives, by design or stealth, wave wands expecting to create whole new worlds?

heh, heh, Freetrader, simply scroll up to find that it was you who first brought up Cuba in this thread. Hm..you are very angry at me for doing something you actually did first. Why does this sound familiar? An echo of your foreign policy philosophy it seems.

I assume you are a born and raised American and as such can't help but assume it is the USA's divine right to interfere around the world as it sees fit. Its just that I am able to see the vigor with which you would defend the actions of Iran or Russia or N. Korea if you'd been born and raised in one of those places.

It was the clown we will refer to as 'nutjob' - he kept raising these irrelevant points such as "wouldn't Cuba have the right to invade the US..." Eventually he, or someone, deleted his posts, so only my answer remains.

Nutjob was probably even more clueless than you are. It was be nice, Bsharp, if you actually contributed to a discussion once rather than simply trolling around making ridiculous assertions.