On Afghanistan...

I like the article you quoted. It presents a clear and unambiguous argument based solely on measurable and specific historical facts, and makes no wild and immeasurable conjectures based on political wishful-thinking.

My position on the US's responsibility in Afghanistan is well known here, and I won't restate it again. My question to all of you is, does the call by General McChrystal to invest trillions of dollars and (probably) thousands of more American lives over the next decade to "build" a new, more secure and democratic Afghanistan not contradict the most basic of "conservative" principles as I understand them to be? The notion of "nation building" is historically seen as "New Deal" in nature (anyone recall the Marshall Plan?) and has questions all its own in regards to furthering the interests and security of the USA. Germany and Japan have risen to competitive status with the US economically, and have not always had the best interests of the US at the heart of their policies and agendas... even though they have remained "allies" of the US since the end of 1946.

Personally, I feel that history is very clear about what happens when we DON'T work to effect measurable democratic principles in areas where we have spent "blood and treasure"... South Vietnam, the Balkans, Iran, Iraq (three times now), Lebanon, Central America and Afghanistan (post-1989)... but opinions vary widely, I know. Knowing that Obama ran on a basically "conservative" plank called non-interventionism (not a principled position, mind you... just more "Bush = Bad" crap), and that there are many far-Right GOP and Libertarian voters who question the Constitutional nature of our interventionist policies, the chances of seeing McChrystal's plan implemented seems pretty slim.

McChrystal isn't calling for a "surge" in Afghanistan. He is proposing an Afghani "Marshall Plan" that will require as many as 500,000 US troops and (literally) trillions of US tax-payer dollars over ten long and painful years... and that is no small spoonful to swallow for many in this country. Add to that the absolute requirement of the active and willing participation of such "allies" as Pakistan, India and NATO, and the possible "butcher's bill" for Gen. McChrystal's request gets longer and longer with each reading.

Is this what "conservatives" are going to get behind in 2010 and beyond?