We have been told that "Afghanistan is a war of necessity". It has been repeated so often that otherwise thoughtful people never question the validity of the assertion. Left to my own devices I can't state for certain that I fully understand the conclusion. All I actually know is what the government tells me. And after the Gulf of Tonkin I must forever accept that the government can and will deliberately lie, and brazenly send loyal, credulous Americans to die and murder under false pretences. There may be those who say making such a statement is unpatriotic, or worse anti-patriotic. I would defend myself by saying that to believe the Bush Administration "lied" us into invading Iraq, for instance, is not anti-patriotic, it is anti-stupid. The facts speak for themselves and can't be obviated by the preferences of ideology. And if "The Project for a New American Century" document is legitimate and not a concoction of sinister anti-government conspirators, then the wish list of its authors, who became leading figures in the Bush Administration, which included American control of the Caspian region and its natural gas and a new Pearl Harbor-like event to make the public accommodating to the military mobilization required to meet their objective, makes 9/11 one of the most perfect confluences of desire and geo-politics in world history; complete with a perfect shadowy enemy fortuitously situated in the scripted area. Are we to believe, "If it’s too good to be true, it probably isn't", only applies to mail fraud? Remember the Maine!

I am not naive and I know that geo-politics is a dirty and tough game. And I also know that power is seductive and deceptive, and consequently seeks to seduce and deceive to advance its own ends. When unopposed or joined in complicity by the news media, unwilling to, or disinterested in asking the powers that be uncomfortable questions, the public is in danger of falling victim to Patriot Abuse Syndrome. "And then ravens will come following the beat of the drums".

As we consider escalation in Afghanistan, supposedly for our "national security", let's consider the logic of the situation. As far as I know the Al Qaeda that attacked us was represented in the persons of 19 individuals, who entered this country on legal visas, lived here for over a year, communicated with their command telephonically or by internet, obtained their flight training here, and allegedly used our domestic aircraft to carry out their attack. We are told the whole operation was funded for $500,000. We are also told the Al Qaeda command structure has since relocated from Afghanistan. So, just how will forty thousand more troops in Afghanistan protect us from a similar attack? And if sending whole armies and spending hundreds of billions of dollars over eight years is disproportionate and tactically inappropriate to the above scenario, are we intentionally being force-fed the wrong scenario? In the immortal words of Rod Serling, "Submitted for your consideration".