bless you CB

Mr. Buckley, you are absolutely right on. We should heed your calling. I for one will call ASAP. Thank you.

I fear that Mr Buckley is right but know that neither he nor I have full access or even partial access to all the information needed to decide how to proceed in Afghanistan. We aren't pulling out now and we do have obligations to a nuclear Pakistan, but it is hard to see this ending well. I have said before that if I were Obama, I would have pulled a Palin on day two. Why would a sane person want his job?

Bring the troops home. I was pilloried in the '60s for saying the same thing, but I still believe I was right then and I believe I'm right now.

Breaks my heart every morning when I see the headlines.Why are we there?

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

Mr. Hoh is a hero. Reading his story and letter is a must for all Americans. Each and every day I think about if we put all the same man power and energy into protecting our U.S. borders here in our own country instead of fighting in the middle east, it would make more sense to me. Sending our men and women to other places, to protect our country ,isn't working. Obama wants to change the way things are done, well here is a great place to start. Afganistan no longer makes sense.

you are so right ...

Thank-you, Christopher, for articulating so well what I've been thinking for many months. And thanks to Mr. Hoh for having the guts to speak out.

I have placed my calls to the offices of Senators Bayh and Lugar. I may even call the office of Rep. Burton even though we all know that to be wasting a dime.

Thanks again for a great piece.

People who say "we don't have access to all the information": I'm sure Hoh has much more than any of us or Mr. Buckley.

GPatton: Mr. Buckley's opinions aren't the issue. Read Mr. Hoh's letter.

Mr. Buckley, you are mostly right but wrong in one critical thing.

You are right about this, that 'nation-building' is a futile (and arrogant) purpose. I do not wish to disengage and become isolationist, but other nations have both the right and the responsibility to mature into whatever they will be, on their own. We cannot 'give' other people what we call freedom. They must take it.

You are wrong in not acknowledging the symbolism of Osama bin Laden, who is to the best of our knowledge still somewhere near the Afghanistan-Packistan border. While his people may indeed be operating from any of a dozen countries now, he is personally still both figurehead and leader. Aside from the justice of it, removing him could not help but be a major blow to a movement that draws much strength from his success is evading and taunting us. It's all about their perceptions. We should have seriously never taken our eye off the priority of nailing that person. We should have run Afghanistan through a seive until we had him and his lieutenants-and THEN we should have left Afghanistan. It may still be possible; I do not know that, our chance may have been squandered. But until we have bin Laden in a sack he will remain an encouragement to our deadly enemies. (And time is not on our side: even death by natural causes would mean he'd have cheated us and won.)

So Joe Biden has somewhat the right idea, to concentrate on finding and destroying high-profile leadership targets. But I think to do that there must be a robust (and concentrated) command on the ground to protect the base of those operations. Then, again, as soon as we've tagged and bagged bin Laden, by all means let's get the hell out of there.

This is the same Christopher Buckley whose poor judgment led him to be mightily impressed by candidate Obama. I think his opinion can be safely ignored at this point.

While it is true that the USA should have left alone all Muslim countries including Iraq and Afghanistan to develop in their own way without trying to impose western values (or lack of values) and ideas on them, getting out of Afghanistan, with tail between the legs, if you will, is not an available option now.

What about the very real threat to USA security for which they went in there in the first place? The threats are even more potent now.

Trying to find moderate Taliban is a futile exercise as by definition they all are hard-wired to hate the Great Satan.

The dividing line between Al Qaeda and The Taliban does not exist. Remember how they refused to hand over bin Laden after 9/11
.
USA has to stay and and get rid of the growing Taliban-Al Qaeda menace using every means at its command. When I say every means I mean every thing that the USA has, low- yield tactical nukes not excepted.

why there is a big juice commercial on this page, it's weird I wanted to read a serious article without distractions of pomm juice ingredients.

Yes. By all means, let's turn Afghanistan back over to the Taliban. They were destroying their own country far more efficiently than we could ever do. We should allow them to re-install the terrorist training camps (terrorists have needs, too), put their women back into garbage bags, destroy the women's schools, destroy the women if they dare to learn or feel or even show an ankle (stoning would be good), continue to eliminate the country's cultural heritage, ethnically cleanse one another's religious opponents, and further drive the remaining population into poverty. Yes. That would be an excellent solution. Let's not rule out negotiation with the psychotic religious fanatics, just because they are psychotic religious fanatics and determined to kill anyone who isn't. After all, shouldn't we set an example of freedom of religion in Afghanistan just as we have it here? Yes. Let's do give the country back to the Taliban. Right away. Am I my brother's keeper? Surely not. And most certainly I am not my sister's keeper.

One serious question, are you all as functionally retarded as Buckley?

Yes. I think we should hand an entire nation back over to bin laden's nifty peace-loving group. I mean, I think having a terrorist group with the resources of an entire nation is a great idea, no? It never caused us any problems before! No more 9/11's after we follow Buckley's lead. Nah. They wouldn't attack us again. Nonsense.

I somehow have a feeling you guys would quickly change your mind when the next 9/11 happens (and it will, be assured of that.)

You shoulda seen the resignation letters sent to Bush. Lots of 'em.

Now THERE was a story.

But you didn't cover that. Right?

Mr. Buckley you are correct. We should bring our troops home and quit wasting our treasure, i.e. the lives of our soldiers.
"Nation building" is an absurd idea. A nation can only be "built" by its own citizens. Each nation has the government it deserves.

I say this with the greatest of ambivalence about a further human/capital commitment to Afghanistan, with nothing but the utmost respect for Captain Hoh, and with a firm belief in every single one of Capt. Hoh's factual assertions (if not his conclusions) . . .

Captain Hoh presents absolutely no new reason for a change in President Obama's Afghanistan policy. That is to say, every single item raised by Capt. Hoh was present when then-candidate Obama repeatedly called "winning" the war in Afghanistan "the top priority." From Karzai's corrupt puppet regime, to the Pashtun rebellion, to the (somewhat) tenuous connection between the Afghanistan War and 9/11, nothing is new here.

Indeed, Captain Hoh's arguments really beg the question of whether Afghanistan was ever really the "war of necessity" that candidate Obama insisted "we finish."

That being said, Captain Hoh's (what I would call) nihilistic approach to Afghanistan also has its consequences.

For example, while it's true that the U.S. military invasion into Pashtun regions has helped fuel an insurgency, it's just as true that the Pashtun and Baloch peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan are largely responsible for the explosion in Islamic terrorism into the West. Declaring war on a people almost always has the consequence of uniting those people against you. But, that doesn't mean that one can never declare war. Leaving the Pashtuns and Balochs to their own devices won't stop the spread of Islamic radicalism; indeed, it will probably only energize it.

Moreover, each of Captain Hoh's pro-withdrawal arguments is equally applicable to virtually every single U.S. military excursion for the past 150 years. Taking just one example, both the European and Pacific Theaters of WWII can easily be viewed as long-standing regional civil wars. The European continent had been at war since the Austria-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914, which lead Germany to declare war on Russia three days later. That war did not end until Berlin finally fell on April 30, 1945 (31 years later) to the invading Russians. All the hallmarks of futility cited by Capt. Hoh in Afghanistan - from corrupt governments, to tribal conflicts, to the tremendous drain on U.S. treasure despite tenuous American interests - were equally present in the European continent's 30-years civil war. Yet, today, almost no one questions at least the second U.S. foray into Europe, and the sacrifices made in connection therewith.

Of course, the same thing can be said of the Pacific's civil war, which began with Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and continued through Japanese expansion throughout Asia, until finally ending with the U.S. dropping two atomic weapons on the Japanese mainland. At least in the Pacific, the Japanese sparked war with the U.S. by launching a sneak attack against the U.S. Navy. But, even that attack had been provoked by a U.S. blockade of Japan. (Lest we forget, Nazi Germany never attacked the United States; yet, the Pashtuns and Balochs helped prepare an attack on the U.S. mainland.)

This is all to say that, even accepting all of Captain Hoh's assertions as true, it does not necessarily follow that a further commitment to what may indeed be a regional civil war is, in the final analysis, unwise or even unwinnable.

It's not like Obama's been asked to come up with a last-minute, snap-decision as to why we're in Afghanistan. He had strong opinions on Afghanistan from before his campaign and all during it, he's been officially analyzing the situation since January, he's got recommendations from both military and civilian advisors, not to mention from all our allies in this. He's never going to have 100% of the facts and only history will tell if his decision will be the right one, but these kinds of ugly decisions come with the job - at some point, speeches don't cut it anymore.

If we ever had a reason to be there it is gone now . I would still like to shove those glasses down Buckley's throat .

Let's agree on one thing: The first thing to do is wipe out the opium fields to cut off money to the Taliban. There is no excuse for Karzai to prevent this if he is serious about the terrorism and weapons abounding in his country. I mean, if Ronald Reagan could spray poison on the marijuana crops in his own country to poison his own people, what is the reluctance here except the corruption of Karzai's own 'government'. If that isn't agreed to, then it is time to LEVEL the mountain ranges between Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with all the little hidden caves and training camps found there. Then get out!!!

I would venture to say if Capt. Hoh's letter doesn't at least make you stop and think you might also want to read this article by Victor Sebestyen in today's NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The opening: THE highly decorated general sat opposite his commander in chief and explained the problems his army faced fighting in the hills around Kabul: "There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another," he said. "Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centers, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize.

"Our soldiers are not to blame. They've fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills." He went on to request extra troops and equipment. "Without them, without a lot more men, this war will continue for a very, very long time," he said.

Afghanistan is the living, breathing example of: "Those who fail to read history are doomed to repeat it."

There will be another 9/11. It is ignorance to believe otherwise. It will not come from Afghanistan, but from Africa somewhere, or Germany again, or the Netherlands, or from London. We cannot and should not wipe out every Muslim in the world, but every one we do kill creates two more jihadists somewhere.

We should put our resources into protecting ourselves better, into helping Muslims have a better life wherever they are, into being a better example for others to follow.

Fighting wars that cannot end well, or perhaps cannot END, is terribly self defeating!

Why do we think that by staying in Afghanistan that another 9/11 won't happen? Where's the evidence? 9 years of no terrorist attacks on US soil? Can we really attribute that statistic to our on going presense in the middle east? What are the victory conditions if we do stay? If we're so concerned with human rights why aren't we helping in Somalia? Why don't we look at other options in taking out Bin Laden other than killing our troops by the dozens?



Our constant meddling with countries and cultures we don't understand will be our undoing.