We were both shocked as well by Obama, who typically doesn't shy away from nuance and details, continually speaking about Afghanistan as if it is a nation in the same manner as the US or UK: But Afghanistan is, of course, not the same. The reason nation-building hasn't worked there (and will continue to not work) is because there is not a national identity to hold together the disparate tribes that comprise its population. It was strange to see such a glaring omission of so basic a fact from Obama's address, although I suppose its inclusion would elicit precisely the sort of questions that Obama hopes to avoid.Spoken by a gal who's never watched Braveheart, heard of the American Civil War, or acquainted herself with Northern Ireland. Evidently. "Afghanistan is not the same." Sister, huh?
-Melissa McEwan, chauvinist
Now, the reason that "nation-building hasn't worked" is that "nation-building" is a euphemism for foreign occupation, and there is resistence. Liberals in general seem to prefer goosey sociological explanations for why the brightness and light of representative democracy do not immediately take hold, and the plain facts of insurgency escape them. Armed Afghans do not want our army in their country, and they will keep trying to kill us until we leave. Go back to college and argue about melting pots and salad bowls, you geeks. Afghanistan is for real, and Superjesus Black Reagan just committed us for the long haul.
And what is revealed about the straw leftism of our dear Shakespearian sisters by this telling slip of the tongue? In every antiwar activista, a Satrap? If only the Afghans weren't so tribal, so primitive, we might sit down and reason together. Maybe Barack Obama could make a speech!