Afghanistan. Peter Bergen, who looks quite fetching in his cheerleader's skirt and little white tennis shoes, pens an op-ed arguing that we do not have to model our humanitarian intervention on the Soviets. Why, we could emulate Genghis Khan instead!
Since Alexander the Great, plenty of conquerors have subdued Afghanistan. In the early 13th century, Genghis Khan’s Mongol hordes ravaged the country’s two major cities. And in 1504, Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire in India, easily took the throne in Kabul. Even the humiliation of 1842 did not last. Three and a half decades later, the British initiated a punitive invasion and ultimately won the second Anglo-Afghan war, which gave them the right to determine Afghanistan’s foreign policy.He continues, noting that the Soviets sent more troops, killed more people, and therefore met with more resistance. Appropriately enough, that's the plan currently being promulgated by the Obama administration, albeit downplaying the killing more people portion.
If our hubris weren't astounding already, it's become artfully over-the-top: as we wallow through trillion-dollar funny-money injections into our own failed economy and seek to stave off the actual, literal, for-real collapse of our system of exchange, we nonetheless have time to stalk around the world telling other people, "Yer doin it wrong." Have we really invaded and occupied a nation halfway around the world in order to turn it into "the model of a somewhat stable Central Asian state"? Is that weasely goal worth one human life? I would risk a turned ankle or a sprained wrist for that goal. America: the mad doctor that prescribes amputation for a patch of eczema on the elbow.