It is the main “cause” for the continuation, however.

You have no call to analyze my character. You just don’t know how I feel about the “women of Afghanistan” or much else. You just don’t know if I’m “remarkably callous” or not because I don’t put my emotions on display in public forums like this one.

Not intentionally.

On the other hand, you put your high emotions out there for all to see, which I consider very tacky. To each his own…

Hm? Where?

To be clear, recall that you introduced the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan/the Holy Warriors/etc etc. as a “snark” against Reagan/neoconservatives. I just showed why that “snark” is misplaced.

You did not.

So you’re using sarcasm to defend yourself against my sarcasm? Is this meta-sarcasm, then? Is this the new sarcasm for the new millennium? I admit that you’re way hipper-than-thou. I stopped being hip in the the late ’90s, like you said. So, congratulate yourself on that one again.

No, I was being serious. That’s when it got old.

You have no call to analyze my character. You just don’t know how I feel about the “women of Afghanistan” or much else. You just don’t know if I’m “remarkably callous” or not because I don’t put my emotions on display in public forums like this one.

On the other hand, you put your high emotions out there for all to see, which I consider very tacky. To each his own…

The argument in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan was about the Taliban’s collusion with al Qaeda. That’s it. Up to now, that mission has been successful since al Qaeda has been denied a state sponsor. It was never about killing or capturing bin Laden—as important as that may be. It was about denying al Qaeda a state sponsor. Whether we get bin Laden or not, al Qaeda is much diminished and today incapable of mounting a strategic attack against us. That’s national security policy, not killing this or that Islamic fanatic.

To be clear, recall that you introduced the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan/the Holy Warriors/etc etc. as a “snark” against Reagan/neoconservatives. I just showed why that “snark” is misplaced.

So you’re using sarcasm to defend yourself against my sarcasm? Is this meta-sarcasm, then? Is this the new sarcasm for the new millennium? I admit that you’re way hipper-than-thou. I stopped being hip in the the late ’90s, like you said. So, congratulate yourself on that one again.

Yeah, the whole porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains a sticky wicket.

(Inb4 “To read this article you must pay Old Man Murdoch $20″.)

Historians tend to cite evidence. If you have evidence for your claim, present it.

So now you’re talking about “Islamist social policy?” Who knew? And, again, who cares about Islamist social policy? Certainly not the neoconservatives since this has no effect on our national security position.

Yes, that was what I was talking about. That was also what was used to justify the invasion: taking out the Taliban would destroy one of the most socially repressive regimes in existence. So that’s what we did, replacing them with someone who tried to write legalised rape into the new constitution.

Now you might not care about the women of Afghanistan. From what I’ve read of you you strike me as a remarkably callous individual, indeed the kind who would take such a description as some perverse form of compliment. Most people, however, are nothing like you in this regard (& I imagine it’s that which prompts your adolescent aspiration towards amorality) & so the hawks have to argue to them that an invasion which is obviously achieving nothing for us save getting our troops killed in an Empire’s Graveyard & getting a load of villagers fragged is doing good for the people of Afghanistan. The argument which they make is that the War in Afghanistan is in favour of the freedom of Afghan women. That might not be something which they do care about, but it is something which right-wingers have at least come to pretend to care about. Barbara Bush is the most notable, but there are plenty of parrots of her memes.

This approach (we’re there to save the people we’re bombing) became especially popular after it became abundantly clear that a capture of Osama was not on the cards: we didn’t get him? Oh well, we still saved millions of women from tyranny.

Of course, we did no such thing: we replaced one set of repressive women-haters with another, who like us. Like I said, you introduced the whole “turn on us” thing, which I never argued. This is why I did not want to reply to you at greater length, but just to clear things up I now have. I do hope you’re satiated.

You predicted that al Qaeda/Taliban would turn on us once the USSR was defeated? Why are you writing blogs? The government should sign you up—or at the very least you should be writing books, learned articles and giving seminars on your geopolitical framework, which allows you to predict such events years in the future.

Very nice snark. Based around a repeated misreading of my words, though. Try reading what I have to say before you respond, next time.

Oh yes, & sarcasm stopped being scathing in the late-1990s. Just something to bear in mind.

I can’t recall that, actually

This is why I said your analysis was “ahistorical.”

So now you’re talking about “Islamist social policy?” Who knew? And, again, who cares about Islamist social policy? Certainly not the neoconservatives since this has no effect on our national security position.

You predicted that al Qaeda/Taliban would turn on us once the USSR was defeated? Why are you writing blogs? The government should sign you up—or at the very least you should be writing books, learned articles and giving seminars on your geopolitical framework, which allows you to predict such events years in the future.

I remember people saying that Afghanistan was “bombed out of the stone age”. For what that’s worth.

I can’t recall that, actually.

As for what they “like to talk about much,” they’re quite willing to discuss Reagan’s—and the Congress’s—support for the Mujahaden. They wouldn’t be ashamed of it either. No one could have predicted that al Qaeda/the Mujahaden/Taliban would have turned on us after we got rid of the USSR. ["We"=the US; Saudi Arabia; Pakistan; the Mujahaden; etc. etc.] If anything, this episode (among many others) gives the lie to the leftist/al Qaeda claim that the US has some special animus against Arabs/Muslims. Therefore, neoconservatives will discuss this as much as you want to.

I’m fairly sure that Islamist social policy, which was what I was referring to, was entirely predictable. For the most part you basically ignore what I had to say, here, so I’ve not much interest in replying to you at greater length.