As a parent of a son who joined the Army in 1998 and will probably stay in at least 30 years if possible, I applaud your questions.

After serving several tours “down range” his conclusions are disturbing. Afghanistan will end for us like it did for the Russians and everybody else before, back to Alexander the Great; ignoble defeat. This is due to the geography, the people and the climate. We will not change history.

Iraq was containable with Saddam in power, now it is a mess that will take several decades, perhaps lifetimes, to stabilize the population and unravel the hate.

We as a country seem to get locked into excessive pride and we want to salve our national ego by invading others. Saddam tweaked our nose; we invade. If we want to fight terrorism we need to do it economically. If a population has enough for comfort, they will not support thoughts of violence. They do not want their children hurt.

A military force is the last resort when diplomacy fails, and, if it is used to start a war, it is an option of a failed political system. Human ego just seems to get in the way, I guess it always will, people have a great degree of difficulty with humility.

My son likes life in the Army, he likes service for his country, he is a quiet left wing liberal, and many who serve with him are. Their biggest concerns are groups in the US, like the Tea Party who, achieving power will likely commit them to foolish wars that are a needless waste of life. All because of foolish pride and foolish nationalism.

I am a Vietnam era vet served six years so I believe qualified to comment.

I am quoting because I think this is the most important part of the article.
"We honor our veterans most greatly when we spare our young men and women from making sacrifices that earlier Americans made in conflicts that, often as not, did not justify their sacrifices"

I also want to point out that if we get em all shot up then we should take care of them. The treatment of Vietnam vets and our guys coming back now is shameful in my opinion.

WW I it was shell shock, WWII it was battle fatigue, Vietnam I think they denied it and did not even give it a name, now it is Post Traumatic Stress.

Dan Bentler

TVD hits a home run with this piece. I'm delighted to be able to wholeheartedly agree with him for once. I plan to share these words with my friends. Thanks, TVD:
We honor our veterans most greatly when we spare our young men and women from making sacrifices that earlier Americans made in conflicts that, often as not, did not justify their sacrifices. There is a question that should be posed to every American president and senior policymaker when war-and-peace decisions are being made: Is this conflict sufficiently important that you would send your own son or daughter to fight and possibly die in it?

Readers of this piece may also find this article inspiring.

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-family-jewelsa-veteran%E2%80%99s-story/

The great American patriotic song, The Star-Spangled Banner, arose from the War of 1812. The war was nothing less than a disaster. George Washington for the most part ignored the conflict between Britain and France, John Adam successfully avoided going to war with France though his skilled diplomacy, and Thomas Jefferson tried to deal with the trade conflict by pushing the ill-conceived Embargo Act. Numerous British provocations finally compelled James Madison to seek a declaration of war. One has to wonder what Madison was thinking; the United States scarcely had any army or navy and was declaring war on the strongest empire in the world. After considerable loss of life and the burning of Washington, the Treaty of Ghent did little more than restore the status quo. The War of 1812 turned Andrew Jackson into a national hero, and indeed Jackson was a man of tremendous personal courage, but he could be added to the list of dubious heroes.

It has recently come to light that President Obama is backing off his plan to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. It was a mistake for him to make this pledge in the first place. It's not clear that the 2011 deadline could have been met with anything resembling a successful outcome, but certainly not with the commitment that the administration was willing to make. The Afghanistan policy is trapped by politics: neither a rapid withdrawal nor a massive escalation are politically acceptable options, but an indefinite, half-hearted commitment probably insures the worst outcome of all. The episode shows that the war hawks do not have a monopoly on misguided foreign policy decisions.

"World War I .... which, with its unfinished business, became an even more brutal World War II involving totalitarian ideologies and wholesale murder of non-combatants."

Ah, there is a lot more to this story. In part the peace treaty of Versailles bankrupted Germany which led to the rise of the Nazi's who were in part sponsored by billionaires in Germany who thought they could control events. That didn't work out so well for them. As mob rule and ideology rule once out of the bag tends to take on a life of it's own. It's a lesson that the Koch brothers seemed to have missed.

Also unfortunately wholesale murder of non-combatants isn't rare.

But what to do? Is merely flying the flag and patting veterans on back enough? No, working toward a world which does not need to engage in warfare to settle questions of land borders, resource use, poverty, servitude and justice will prevent tempers from flaring to the point of war.

Afghanistan is the death of empires.. We should declare victory and leave. The only thing we should be sending there is schools.

Thanks for your comments and, also, for comments received at my e-mail address from several others.

Since I wrote this, Obama advisors have suggested that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan could last until 2014. This is unthinkable. I presume the President, on his return from overseas, will stop this kind of talk and
order an early-2011 first principles review.