President Obama's correct firing of General McChrystal has been praised and condemned for the wrong reasons. It is not that McChrystal was insubordinate in his behavior, rather it sees he charged into the pressroom of one of the known left-wing news outlets to sacrifice his position in exchange for an international focus on the war. On, I should say, the failure of the war strategy. This appears as a deliberate act and it is a patriotic one. The war cannot be won, it cannot be won with the resources now allocated both for military action or for reconstruction. We are reproducing the strategy of both the British and the Russians as I and many other anthropologists have been demonstrating for over 30 years (see my post on this at: http://www.dailykos.com/... it is not that we are fighting the war wrong with the wrong strategy but that this war cannot be won and no invader in Afghanistan realizes that until it is too late. We have to remember that the Soviets left Afghanistan only after they had beaten back the resistance and installed a puppet regime with a "national" army that they touted would be able to defend itself.
So what are the alternatives? To leave, that is the only alternative and the longer we wait the worse it will be. The reason to stay is not simply geopolitical or linked to resources, like the third time oil or minerals have been announced there (http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/15/US_finds_mineral_wealth_reserves_in_Afghanistan/).
There is no reason. There are sufficient other regional players who will fill our shoes in the struggle over control of this country, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. I have detailed this problem in an earlier post (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/25/808110/-Afghanistan:-Not-One-More-Soldier,-Soviet-Brit-Rep
eat). There is no reason for delay except that we cannot stomach failure. One must, not matter as an individual or as a nation, decide when to fold the cards, to dump on a bad investment or to retreat in a military confrontation when met by forces that have you out classed. This is one of those situations, but the inability to meet and recognize such a situation is seldom realized. The Roman Emperor Trajan realized this in an extraordinary analysis of conditions, resources and value when he abandoned territory and planned expansion that had led to failures by Roman generals before him. This was remarkable since he had been victorious in his wars and was the last emperor to expand the empire.
The Chinese dynasties faced the same challenge 2000 years ago when they sent army after army to secure their western border. Their armies contended with tribes in the Tarim Basin, Dzungaria, the Alti mountains and the Pamirs into the areas north of Afghanistan and Sogdiana. One people, the Alani even were driven west to Parthia and later appeared at the borders of the Roman Empire. The inability to pacify Afghanistan over more than 2000 years parallels failures to do so in Palestine by the Egyptians, Selucids and Romans. Only removal of the entire population succeeded in producing peace. Even the Mongols under Ghenghis Khan suffered crushing defeats at the hands of the Afghans and only under Timurlane did they succeed in a temporary control.
Will there be peace if we leave, no, will it be messy, yes, but it will be no matter when we leave. Is it morally reprehensible to leave now, yes, but are the deaths now justified? No, there is no plan for victory, no acceptable strategy that has worked, we are just buying temporary allies and further corrupting the people by our presence. The responsible thing to do is leave. We can call a regional meeting, have Karsai make a speech and ask for regional peace-keepers if we want to make a show of it. Really, though, there is nothing to gain by staying. We have three wars now, North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. Time to reduce the play bill to one. Or, if at least, by one.