I'm not as familiar with recent events in Iraq, but Baker's points re Afghanistan are great. Here's another quote that Mader didn't include: "Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda." He does muddy the waters by including the Madrid and London bombings as examples (it is alleged that Khan trained in AF -- http://is.gd/MyR -- in the case of London, but I believe it was AQ-inspired in the case of Madrid) but his premise is correct. - John Jarvis
"[O]ne unintended consequence of knocking out senior Taliban leaders has been the rapid rise of inexperienced younger leaders, some of whom have been radicalized by al-Qaeda." Interesting. - John Jarvis
This is really neat. There doesn't seem to be a lot of data at this point, but since they get it through Amazon's official service, I guess I can't really fault them. - John Jarvis
Posted the following comment: Matt, you say that the region's history has been overlooked, and yet you don't talk about Al Qaeda's freedom to operate there (until the U.S. invasion in 2001). We can certainly debate the reasoning behind giving the fight against terrorism such high priority around the world, but I don't think it's fair to label our ISAF participation in that venture as reckless: al Qaeda's strength then is what brought U.S. and ISAF involvement there years ago, and AQ's strength today would be a more meaningful measure of our success up to this point. Unfortunately, all the news isn't good from that perspective either, however. AQ traded one willing host (i.e., the Taliban) for another in the tribal areas of North Warizistan. I read an interview on CBC recently with Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid where he urged Canada to develop its foreign policy regarding Pakistan -- http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story... -- and I think this is an excellent... - John Jarvis
... idea, both WRT to the AQ issue above and the more immediate sheltering of militants on their border with Afghanistan.
So where does this leave us? Punishing the Taliban for sheltering AQ is one thing -- we don't want any regime thinking that's a good idea, or even not a bad idea, ever again -- but there seems to be some agreement that trading them for the warlords (and the Kabul government that you've effectively labeled) was in no one's best interest (well, other than the warlords, I guess). Should we talk with the Taliban? I think that option should certainly be on the table; we need to step back and look at what will stabilize the region in the longer term. I think we spent too much time talking about how we'd modernize them, if you will. Sending girls to school is great, but in the grand scheme of things, I never would've supported our government knocking out a stable government if it weren't for their poor policy of being at least indifferent to AQ. - John Jarvis
Finally, a comment on our country and the world stage, as it were. In a word (or date): 1956. I know I'm not alone in my nostalgia when I think about Lester B. Pearson's contribution in that crisis. We've done a lot of damage to our international reputation since then (e.g., even in recent memory, there's Kyoto, Harper's quick "me too" re summer 2006 in Lebanon), but I still hope we can get back to a place where we are considered a socially and morally responsible nation that is trying to do its part. Because it's only from that position that we can be seen as respected negotiators by both sides in any future conflicts.
I like how the Conservatives talk about making us relevant again. I just worry that they think an excellent military is the answer, as opposed to an important part of a complex effort. - John Jarvis
