Emeralds…and Lapis lazuli.

Back in the days when artists still ground and mixed their own paints from interesting minerals, instead of buying them readymade, lapis was the key ingredient needed to make ultramarine blue pigment and since it had to come all the way from northeast Afghanistan, that made blue the most expensive paint on the palette of any Renaissance painter. When you see frescoes by Giotto or Masacio, the blue of the Virgin Mary’s robes or of the vault of Heaven is made from Afghan lapis.

I appreciate your taking the time to point out the huge differences and just how much more complex things are today …

This is what burns my butt. The U.S. is criticized for everything but we are on speed dial anytime there is a problem or something catastrophic happens.

However, first, let me point out that Vietnam are remarkably different in inception than what brought us to Afghanistan. The fact that they seem to mirror each other in a stalemate is due also to the MSM.

Remember, the reporters categorically hate war. They are as fundamentally opposed to it as I am to riding as a passenger in a car with a flaming liberal. The fact that they are unable to conceptualize the necessity for the war in Afghanistan is immaterial; They are caught up in the days of yesteryear, nostalgic for the time when Vietnam was sending their hippy-dippy friends off to Mulai and so on…..while they toted off to Canada and smoked pot and had love-ins and rebelled against “the man”.

So, what results is the dichotomy of a former hippy who wanted to change the world, reporting on world change and not liking it while at the same time, not realizing that if US forces did not go into Afghanistan, then the purveyors of evil, bad, dastardly acts would have a safe place to hide.

Meanwhile, they do their best to get video of the “atrocities” committed by US forces to “prove” their point that the US military is a baby-killing machine. Admittedly, they are falling short of such material and for good reason. The precision with which the military can attack since 40 years ago has improved a thousandfold. But this does not suit the hippies cum “journalists”.

Side note: Calling these people “journalists” is like calling a hooker a “party organizer”.

So what we end up with is modern day warfare reported by those who have neither kept up with the times, nor desire to understand that a flaming liberal like Bo-Bo could even consider a “war of escalation”.

Bear in mind, that was Johnson’s big plan. However, he had no more business playing “army” than I do playing left tackle for the Bears. Micromanaging, which is not Bo-Bo’s forte’ will, undoubtedly, make him look even more the fool than he already is. But remember in Vietnam, the euphemism was “advisors” and now it’s “trainers”.

Finally, the mindset of the average Afghan is far, far removed from anything having to do with war, civil or otherwise. As has been pointed out, they pretty much live hand-to-mouth and are generally a very content, peaceful people. And, again, were it not for the fact that we had to go in there and go hunt for the evil people, the average Afghan would pretty much not pay any attention that anything different was going on.

The risk we now run is being viewed by them as the creators of disarray. Everybody, even simple villagers, prefer quiet, peace and the ability to go about their day-to-day business in their comfort zone. For us to be there is often to them like an army of construction crews coming into our housing development at all hours…waking us up, moving us around…getting in our way.

To say it’s necessary, from our point of view, is overstating the obvious. But to them, it’s disruptive and our military leaders are doing their best to make sure it is minimized. Unfortunately, by our mere presence, the likelihood of resentment is far greater toward us than it would be toward the average Taliban member passing through or even several of them.

In many ways this is why I agree with a remotely run offensive. But I can’t get past the obvious need for being there, on the ground, to confirm who we killed. Be it a key terrorist or not.

Then, there is the obvious and unfortunate cultural difference. In WWII, US troops were able to operate relatively unfettered once an area was secured because of the commonality of Western values in Europe. Plus, most people there were in touch with what was really going on.

In Afghanistan, word is spread by mouth and unless you were born and raised there, and knew these very closed, very secretive people personally, you would have no idea who is your enemy until you got a knife in your back.

To say that the US is pretty much a power-force rather than a subversive one is obvious. But the average “reporter” and even the average American is unaware of the intricacies of the whole thing. It is both simple (We need to go in and get Osama Bin Ladin) and complex (The locals are curiously friendly, yet closed off and secret while suspicious of outsiders and even of those who speak their language. We do not know who is aligned with whom and if they would help us or not)

And obviously, the neanderthal idea “kill em all” is anathema to our goal.

But, also….no matter how hard we try…it is a fool’s errand to try to place a democratic form of government in that region…or in Iraq for that matter. It’s a wonderful thought and noble in cause but misguided.

My uptake from the beginning was let Bin Ladin feel comfortable wherever he chose to go…let him come out and then we pop him.

In typical US fashion, we march. No one entertained the idea of letting the dust settle then when their pants were down, nail ‘em.

It’s a fundamental flaw I learned while in the military that “action….even if it’s incorrect…is progress”. They teach it at war college and it’s wrong. Especially in the Middle East. They are masters of subversion, lying, duplicity, stealth, and working under the radar. We basically ignored that, once again…and this is where there is a similarity to Vietnam…..make them fight a war on OUR terms. What happened in the 1780′s? Did we defeat Great Britain by fighting on THEIR terms? That is, line up in front of each other and shoot our long-rifles at one another in “fair” fashion? Well..hell no. We wanted to win….get them out…at all costs…and we did it by waging guerrilla warfare to a large extent, frustrating the British generals and architects of “modern” warfare.

Finally, we do see progress. We are adapting and learning all the time, to the credit of our military. Though I don’t see exactly what good “trainers” do and I believe that Bo-Bo has no concept of what terrorists want to begin with, I hope it’s a step in the right direction. But I fear, and expect that the democrats, like Vietnam, will make this a boodoggle of (yet again) EPIC proportions.

I dunno, perhaps they’re thinking of the movie deals that will come out of it in 2029.

But it’s not Vietnam. No slam towards you is intended. In fact, it was a keen observation that you made. But we’ve been fighting in very difficult terrain and our learning curve there is steep and difficult. my friends who return from there, duty bound and faithful, would go back again and again…and have. But they hate it. They hate dealing with the Afghans….and are having trouble seeing the point though they know why. A weary soldier is an unhappy soldier and seeing no progress and (like Vietnam) their lives being decided by Washington…and now especially Obama, they are less than happy with their chosen profession. This is not to say they would do less than their very best. But they are as frustrated as everyone else…and they have to put their lives in jeopardy in spite of it while we can sit at home and bitch about it.

Your opening sentence is just terrific. It really made my day. I hope you don’t mind, but I e-mailed it with the picture to several friends.

I have to give him his due on this–the only thing I’ve agreed with him on in his whole presidency. He is trying to keep Al Qaeda from creating a safe haven in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 1 out of 50–I doubt it is going to be the start of a good streak, though.