I've always found laughable the notion that Pakistan is some kind of "ally" in the fabled "War on Terror": the Taliban was a Pakistani creature, formed out of the remnants of the U.S.-supported mujahideen, and it clearly still has the (at least sentimental) support of influential members of the ISI apparatus.

Pakistan's been knifing NATO in the back since 2003, something our leadership is either too stupid to realise or too afraid to confront.

…which is precisely what the Americans thought they were doing in Vietnam, ending up instead demonstrating their catastrophic habit of choosing the worst of the bad guys–first underwriting the squalid, widely loathed French colonial regime as it tottered to its final doom and then supporting a series of southern despots, all in the name of defeating a man revered by virtually all Vietnamese as a nationalist hero of the struggle against Japan's brutal war-time occupation.

Oh yes. Vietnam was a noble failure indeed. It’s a good thing the White House has learned to wear its geo-strategic idiocies more elegantly.

..who were "subjugated", we recall, by an army of NVA volunteers, hordes of indigenous Viet-Cong, and their millions of southern nationalist supporters, whose job was made easy by the steady stream of ARVN conscripts deserting after losing the stomach to fight for a corrupt, violent puppet regime that had earned the loyalty of no one.

…the strengthening of capitalism's enemies…

…the two most powerful of which, China and the Soviet Union, were actually bitterly divided over Vietnam.

If that could be guaranteed, it may well meet NATO security goals, as it would be hard for Al Qaida to use Afghanistan as a base. No outright Taliban domination and continuing conflict would be very much like what Afghanistan was like before Benazir Bhutto's Pakistani government backed the Taliban. Bad news for the people of Afghanistan, but not necessarily out of line with what I believe is the only goal of NATO policy which can still be defended reasonably. Afghanistan fighting with itself would be much like Afghanistan during the last 100 years or more.

This is the problem i have with these hellsh engagements. I'm pretty sure not all of these laudable aims were on the table when the Taliban were kicked out. These things tend to take on a life of their own…what are we there for morphs inevitably into what happens if we leave.

A logical progression yes, but nevertheless a progression. It's relevent to Vietnam n this sense, there's always another perfectly reasonable seeming scenario just around the corner that argues against leaving. I'm not even making a case for leaving, but let's beware the siren song or regional stability. [cont]

Man, they don't even care how gratuitous that accusation is anymore.

Well done, wingnuts.

Islamism wants to take over the world and kill the kufar, which means you, no matter how many anti-semitic rallies you participate in.

Prevailing militarily over the Taliban means taking the war to the tribal areas of Pakistan, which means destabilizing Pakistan, which leaves attacking India is the only way to preserve the Pakistani state.

The tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan just want to be left alone. It is absurd to suggest that they represent a threat to the West. The attempt of the reigning imperial power to conquer Afghanistan and/or the tribal areas of Pakistan has always been imperial overreach.

What people remember about Vietnam (which, incidentally, was a fantastically bloodier and more expensive debacle than Afghanistan) is that the Americans got beat. What people have always forgotten is that because the Americans got beat, things actually happened. Yes, domino theory was bull, but then again at the time most impartial observers knew that too and I don't think anybody reasonable is suggesting that the Taliban is going to start throwing burqas on Indian women any time soon.

It's just hard to imagine it getting better over time.

I wonder how closely this list matches the list of very bad things that could happen if the US withdraws from Vietnam.

I guess what struck me was that after the Taliban were dislodged that there really was a possibility that something positive was within reach, and yet even then it wasnt going to be easy….Taylor's point about what was required for Afghans handling their own security, seemingly the objective anyone can agree to, was sobering. The number of tasks and effort, not complex just substantial, was incredible. This discussion has never been had, outside of maybe a few think tanks.

Just lots of drift, nobiody in control. All the Brits and Canadians were ever doing was a holding action until the US turned its attention back to the task. And yet now, the political will to do what is necessary is disappating.

It was a good and thought provoking duscussion. Sadly fear may be the only way to bring countries back to the table. But people may be numb to that now.

Senility, I'm afraid, has attacked Brother Coyne. Unfortunately, there's no vaccine for it.

For everyone except people whose last names aren't Coyne.