Conservatives often accuse the left of hating America, and the left usually responds with a roll of the eyes and a comment like, “It’s not un-American to criticize your country.” My response to that has always been that it’s not un-American to constructively criticize your country, as opposed to reflexively criticizing your country.

I was much more politically active in the early 80’s than I am today. I participated in a few organized college debates and a whole bunch of unorganized ones. The single most common criticism from the left regarding US foreign policy was moral hypocrisy. We talk constantly of freedom, and denounce tyranny, but then support tyrants in Latin America and elsewhere when it suits our interest, and usually it was all “justified” or rationalized by the cold war.

You know what? That is a legitimate argument. (I don’t have to agree with an argument to concede its legitimacy.) But even then, little in the way of an alternative was ever really proposed. Usually they would simply point out the alleged hypocrisy, and their argument was done.

The implication, or so I naively thought at the time, was that they were advocating a more morally consistent foreign policy. Not just talking about freedom, but working as an advocate for it. Not looking the other way when tyrants reared their head, but actively opposing them, even if the tyrants were of the anti-communist variety. But now that the cold war is over the most common criticism from the left regarding US foreign policy is that we are trying to “unilaterally” impose our views on the rest of the world, and operating as a de facto empire.

The only consistency I can find in my years of debate with the left is that they consistently take the anti-American side, and seemingly construct their arguments after the fact to support their position. Then, when they take that position, they never offer up a superior (constructive) policy recommendation. Is it any wonder we conclude they hate America?

American mission in Afghanistan--can you say what exactly it is?. To kill Bin Laden? Possible but what after that?. Going home means Taleban again in Kabul? Otherwise it is fighting for ever and getting embroiled in Pakistani civil war also.

Mission in Afghanistan? It's just like the old cavalry slogan, "ride to the sound of the guns!"

The Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is the main nest of Islamic terrorists. Of course we are as close to that spot as we can be. (And the biggest terror-supporting nation is on the other side of Afghanistan--a bonus!)

The problems centered in that area may be impossible to solve. But it's for sure we won't solve them by staying away and keeping our hands clean.

You should be encouraging us--those head-chopping maniacs aren't very far from your town.

In fact I'd say India should send a few brigades and start chipping away at the problem with us. There's only one way to learn how to do it, and you probably have enough of the Anglosphere in your cultural genes to become a serious nation if you try.

Bisaal,

Your point is well taken. There are no good options there. But that doesn’t mean we give up. It means we choose the least bad option. Right now I’d say that is to provide as much security as possible for the people, recruit allies who will help us fight the Taliban, and continually be looking for better options.

You say, “…getting embroiled in Pakistani civil war…” like that is a bad thing. If, God forbid, a civil war does break out in Pakistan we would have no choice but to get involved. There is a nuclear arsenal there that absolutely can not fall into the hands of the extremists. I am pleased to know we are physically close to that situation, if for no other reason than to destroy or secure those sites if the need should arise.

Wull golly gee, so that's why we are in Iraq. Who wudda thunk.....

Naw, we're in Iraq to steal their oil.... haven't you noticed gas prices dropping?

Americans are too fixated on Bin Laden. If he is killed in a drone-strike tomorrow, the Americans will declare victory and go home the next day.
Thats what I mean American mission is not serious.

Indian Army is already extended in Kashmir with approx half a million soldiers pacifying a small valley. Certainly no Indian Govt will even consider
an Afghan adventure. The Indian Govt (and Indian Army) in any case, is pretty conservative. You see, we did not interfare in Nepal too.

A base in Afghanistan is a peculiar place to interfare in Paksitani Civil War (assuming they have one). Assuming it breaks out, how is the Army in Afghanistan to be supplied?

I know India has its own problems in hand. But I felt like being a bit snarky because of your pretense of detachment, as if you were commenting on something distant and obscure. It's much more your problem than mine.

"how is the Army in Afghanistan to be supplied?" Through Pakistan, of course. The Paki's can either cooperate, or we will do it the hard way. (And we always have the option of burning our equipment and leaving Afghanistan by air. Unlike you, we can leave the neighborhood.)

And Americans are not fixated on Bin Laden. You mention him more than I do. Democrats were using failure-to-catch-Bin-Laden as a political talking-point as long as Bush was in office, but they will certainly drop the subject now.

"The Indian Govt (and Indian Army) in any case, is pretty conservative."

Yeah, and the police and commandos in Mumbai were conservative. So tell me how well that worked out!

It's a hard thing to say, but India is going to have to grow up in a hurry. As my Trotsky quote goes,

"You may not be interested in war,
but war is interested in you."

4th Generation Warfare is like "Internet time." It moves and changes very fast. "Conservative" won't work.

This is the Information Age, and the most valuable thing is knowledge. It is much more valuable that all the physical stuff, like guns and planes and buildings, etc. I know it will not happen, but India ought to be begging for any chance to fight alongside the Americans. We are the best. The Brits and the Australians are almost as good. The skills to be gained are priceless.

If the good nations of the world could see things clearly, America could charge money for the privilege of fighting with us. I'd say a million dollars per man per year would be a bargain-basement price.

Bisaal,

I'm afraid you are getting some bad info on America's fixations. Our response to 9/11 was never about "getting Bin Laden" (though it would have been a nice bonus). It was never about "revenge". It was about preventing the next 9/11.

If understood in these terms (and boy oh boy the Democrats didn't help), all of our actions make perfect sense. The Taliban had to be taken down because they had allowed their country to become a training ground and safe haven for those who would perpetrate the next 9/11.

Saddam Hussein had to be removed because a virulent anti-American dictator with a history of aiding and abetting terrorists and access to WMD could not be allowed to stay in power. He was the most-likely-candidate to assist terrorists in the next 9/11.

And now for the real perplexing question. Here is a one question quiz to see if you are learning anything about Americans. Why on earth did we go through so much trouble to try and establish democracies in these countries? It would have been so easy to set up a strong man with lots and lots of our weapons at his disposal, and simply look the other way while he did what was necessary to maintain order. All of our short term goals in the war on terror would have been accomplished years ago.

1) About preventing next 9/11: jihadis are present in many countries and and it is the jihadis that are actually present in Western countries that are of greatest danger rather than those cooped up in places such as Afghanistan.
However, this type of American intervention increases traffic to-and-fro from Islamic lands and Western lands.
Eg Somalians re-settled in US.

2) After 8 years of intervention, the Karzai govt
still cant exist without Western support.
In face of economic crisis, how long America will support him?.

Bisaal, you keep complaining and asking questions (the answers to which never seem to satisfy you).

If you don't like the way we are doing things, why don't you come up with a better plan?

How do you know domestic jihadis are more dangerous? Where's your evidence? And consider, if we were not in Afghanistan, the Paki jihadis would be a very different thing, with possibly much more time on their hands to plan mischief.

Unless the jihadis were facilitated by virtue of being in West, they could do little.

Anyway, I have just one question-what is the criterion for victory in Afghanistan?
ie What must happen for US to declare a Victory and then go back home.

As for alternative plan, here is one I found via Ralph Peters:
. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.

Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.

I like the plan a lot!

Criterion for victory? It's too early to ask that question. The problem is Pakistan, but no one knows what to do with it, so no one can point to a road that leads to "victory."

But not all problems have solutions. Some are non-linear, but might yield to successive approximations, or to inspired guesswork. That's the way life is.

Bisaal,

Thanks for the reference to the Peter's plan. I have to admit he makes a very compelling case. It does strike me that his entire case rests on the premise that we are ...attempting to modernize a society that doesn't want to be — and cannot be — transformed.

There certainly seems to be some evidence for this, but I am not an expert on Afghanistan. If I were in Obama's shoes I would round up my experts in the CIA and the State department and get their assessment. If Peter's is right, then his change in strategy may be warranted.

Wow! That would be a tough call to make. Glad I'm not President.

What does it mean "to modernize a country"
Is it to make it safe for Pornographers.
If the Taleban want to ban TV, I can understand them for TV is the vanguard for Pornographers.

But as CS Lewis says it seems to be a a basic law of the world-you have a death-like descent before you can come up. So I guess we have to pass through this temptation by Porn.

Also pls see interesting discussion of Peters' plan esp its shortcomings at Belmont Club.
Also re: the idea of supplying Afghanistan through Iran.