shenanistan.

Good afternoon, Clint. Sorry I've been absent as of late. I'm lazy.

I have been thinking a lot lately about Afghanistan. As I get older, I find it increasingly difficult to decide how I feel about certain political positions and situations worldwide. I think part of that is that I have access to literally any piece of information that I want...whenever I want it...which is something that I know that you have an opinion on, being a journalism dude (which is a conversation for a later date). The information that CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Fox News, Atlantic Monthly, and even the Daily Show and Colbert Report that comes into my world and I have to process my opinion on said issue. It's hard! However, as I am trying to be a responsible citizen, I feel like I need to do that. That said...I think I'm going to try and talk out my feelings on Afghanistan...or Shenanistan as I like to think of it.

This will be in parts so that I can organize my thoughts better:

1.) The whole idea that Afghanistan has never been conquered and therefore any attempt at fighting there is futile: That's just ridiculous. The problem is not that Afghanistan is some invincible force of geography and insurgency. In fact, part of the problem is that the country continually changed hands for centuries. Alexander the Great named one of the cities there after his horse, for Pete's sake! The Persians, the Turks and Mongols all made their own forays into the country...and let's not forget the multitude of tribes that are constantly destroying each other for the sheep grazing land (not really even a joke there...). Obviously, people remember the doomed expedition that the Soviets attempted and use that as their example. However, I would like to remind everyone, not that you needed reminding, the US

helped the Afghans out considerably... monetarily and materially speaking. So...it's not

impossible. Certainly not easy or even a good idea...I mean what was the line from "The Princess Bride"? "Mawage..." No, not that one..."Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Yeah, nobody

pays attention to that...moving on.

Also something about games involving a Sicilian and death...

2.) Should we even be there: While I am not really all that excited about deploying troops anywhere, Afghanistan has always made more sense to me than Iraq did. I think that the most clear and present danger to the United States is coming from Afghanistan and the area surrounding it (read: border with Pakistan). The enemy is there. That's what the intelligence tells us, that's what the evidence tells us. And even if we are missing them, the poppies being grown and sold from Afghanistan are a major source of revenue for the insurgencies that we are

trying to defeat. So...yeah. We need to be there.

3.) The Afghan government: What a mess. The corruption and distrust that the government of that country allows is ridiculous. It would be impossible to do anything constructive there as long as it continues. I heard Hamid Karzai on NPR the other day saying that blame for the

corruption should be shared with the west. Really? I mean, I'm sure there's an issue with that. But get your house in order, man. I'm not a world leader and I know it's not easy...however, it's one of those things that is keeping Afghanistan from doing anything. Literally anything. When the people don't trust their own government, you're begging for a revolution. Thomas Hobbes describes what's called the "social contract" in The Leviathan. In short, people have the rights to everything...which makes "war" man's natural state. We have to give up some rights to a

government in order to achieve peace. But if you do not trust a government, then you would not give up those rights. So why should the Afghans work with the government? They can't trust the government! That has to happen before any progress can...well...progress!

I think that I'd give up my rights to a giant with a sword...probably...

4.) The troop surge question: It is not an issue of whether or not we should have a troop surge. It is a question of strategy and what we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. And I think people need to keep that in mind when they hear that Gen. McChrystal wants more troops. He has been given orders to complete a mission in Afghanistan. As I understand that

mission, it is to halt the Taliban, pursue Al Qaeda until they no longer have a safe haven, and help to stabilize the government. The way that he sees as the best way to do that, is going to involve more troops. This is because he feels that making the citizens of Afghanistan feel safe, makes them want to fight against those that are destroying that peace. And when those guys are the Taliban, then suddenly you have Afghans fighting against the bad guys. Again, you have to trust the government first...and if the government can't protect you, then how can you trust them? But do we really need more troops to achieve this goal? I might have to agree with Gen. McChrystal. However, if we are talking about a different goal...or if we change our strategy then the troop surge may not be necessary. Which leads me to my next section...

5.) Obama's (In)decision: I'm not going to sit here and say that he has to go with his General. I'm also not going to sit here and say that he would be a fool to listen to the "war mongering" of his military leadership and conservative War Hawks (War of 1812 reference: check

.). All I'm saying is make a decision. It's been 3 months. 3 months. Wow.

Sun Tsu's The Art of War talks a lot about how being thoughtful and organized will lead to success in war. So I'm certainly not upset with the consideration that he is putting in. However, in the same work, Sun Tsu states "Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays." So I appreciate the time he is spending...but American soldiers are dying and the leadership is just waiting for orders.

Look at that beard...that beard conquered nations...

So...there you go. My first serious post.

Tadaaaa.