Some were distressed that I mentioned "The Project for a New American Century" publication in my blog the other day discussing our future path in Afghanistan. Oh my, not all the 9/11 stuff again! I can understand the shudder. I have been very clumsy in expressing my views on that event and its aftermath. And over the time I have been participating on this site I have probably bored many by relating my views to Vietnam. I know those of a certain age resent what they feel is overblown attention to the decade of the Sixties. But the lesson of that era is that the American public, only fifteen years removed from the end of WW II, was still inebriated with the idea of the "good war", and naively assumed that all wars we engaged in are for high moral purposes, unsullied by base geo-politics, advantage, or gain. Vietnam opened the eyes of many, even if they have since chosen to avert them. It was generally acknowledged in the reflective days after the fact, that our error lay in too quickly and without due diligence accepting the pseudepigraphic gospel of our political and military leaders. The citizenry was content with domestic tranquility, prosperity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while the politicians presided over an 800 pound gorilla seeing no reason to cede differences of opinions to the chimpanzees of the world. History has recorded the results; although apparently only in pencil. Consequently, I feel I am being justifiably rational recognizing glaring, legitimate, and unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 and the supersonic rush to put American troops in harm's way and thus making any inquisition unpatriotic and treasonous subversion of the bravery and vulnerability of our armed forces. The Gulf of Tonkin all over again. But, if no one else will ask the questions, I feel I must. After all, it was the precipitating event for war; no small and inconsequential matter.

The present debate over Afghanistan is being distorted. No one disagrees that General McCrystall, as a professional soldier, is properly asking for the resources he feels necessary to perform the mission he has been assigned. The problem is the mission itself. We are told it is a "necessary" war vital for our "national security". If our national security is threatened from that quarter, it certainly can't reside in Al Qaeda, for a number of logical reasons. Let's do a brief outline. There are 194 nations in the world. The United States spends more on its military than all the other 193 combined. Out of the other 193, how many have even one military base outside of their own national territory? The United States has over 1,000 military bases (Army, Air Force and Navy) outside its national territory, situated in every corner of the world, excepting Antarctica, and has millions of men under arms. Added to this, we have 13 Naval Aircraft Carrier Task Forces roaming the seas. Each task force group is comprised of a Carrier with a complement of several aircraft squadrons, a missile Cruiser, two missile Destroyers, a Los Angeles class submarine, and several support vessels. We have SAC. We have military and spy satellites circling the planet. We have long range Cruise missiles and killer drone planes. We possess the most technologically advanced weapons for prosecuting conventional warfare. And last but not least, we have 40,000 nuclear warheads and delivery devices. Can Al Qaeda be a military threat? And if Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, is that reason to invade and occupy Afghanistan, simply because Al Qaeda chose to conceive the plan in that locale instead of renting the conference room at the Montreal Ritz-Carlton? It is also my understanding they are now convening militarily and socially in Pakistan, and despite their uncooperative belligerence are somehow not now deemed invasion worthy. So, exactly what is the mission? What can forty thousand more troops in Afghanistan do to prevent Al Qaeda from doing whatever it is they do, anywhere else in the world where they can gather a quorum? I suggest the real mission, is and has always been, to secure control of the Caspian region's increasingly valuable and essential natural gas deposits. And if Al Qaeda didn't presently exist, they would be invented as a pretext for action. In hardcore geo-political circles I suspect this is the ruthlessly correct play; but the American people would not condone such open ruthlessness unless their sensibilities are massaged and attitudinally adjusted by the call to "national security" and "proliferation of democracy". Too cynical? Read your newspaper and listen to the evening news. How do you blatantly invade other nations and end up fighting "counter-insurgencies"? Neither the logic nor the semantics make sense. And if they do, congratulations, you've been Tonkin-ized.