Well if representative democracy is the test, then our job in Afghanistan is over.

Karzai has been in office for several years now. They have a Parliament.

Let them defend themselves.

Afghanistan has a history of representative government through the loya jirga – a bit tribal, yes, but “western democracy” can be fitted to it. Most elections in early American history had a strong ethnic/tribal character, too.

It’s not our “job;” it’s in our interests. Representative governments have proven to be more stable and less hostile to us than tyrannies. The nations in the Middle East most friendly to us (Bahrain, Lebanon, Kuwait, and now Iraq) have some limited form of popularly representative government. Meanwhile, our tyrannical “friends” (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan – elections every now and then when the military wants a time-out from bad press doesn’t count – Yemen, etc.) are just as time-consuming as our enemies.

That is why representative government of some form is needed. The Afghan people need a stake in this; they hated al Qaeda and the Taliban (the latter was and is considered a Pakistani puppet group), but replacing one foreign puppet regime with another won’t work.

How do you create democratic institution in a culture that is thousands of years old and has no tradition of any such thing ?

And why should it be the job of the United States to do it ?

You can kill all the Taliban and Al Queada today and there will be new Taliban or Al Queada-like enemies in a very short time. The culture there breeds them naturally in their Islamist interpretation of Islam.

Maybe you can pay to get your warlords to suppress people who want to kill Westerners. But if there is enough Islamist oil money moving around, sooner or later, they will look the other way.

Frankly, I see your point.

One thing though:

My definition of victory is something I think we should have been working on achieving back in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Now that we’ve been there for nearly eight (!) years, I’m not sure it’s quite that simple anymore. For better or worse, we’re invested in Afghanistan and its proximity to the equally unstable, and nuclear-armed, Pakistan just makes this one of those problems that I don’t think there’s a good solution to.

And your point about the history in that region stretching back to Alexander is well taken

That is why representative government of some form is needed. The Afghan people need a stake in this; they hated al Qaeda and the Taliban (the latter was and is considered a Pakistani puppet group), but replacing one foreign puppet regime with another won’t work.

Some of the warlords will likely win some provincial elections; that’s ok with me.

Also, is it true that we get most of our legal opium by-products from Turkey? If so, we may want to switch that up, pronto. I’d trust the Afghans over Erdogan any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As you define victory, then I understand if you can achieve it or not.

You can kill all the Taliban and Al Queada today and there will be new Taliban or Al Queada-like enemies in a very short time. The culture there breeds them naturally in their Islamist interpretation of Islam.

Maybe you can pay to get your warlords to suppress people who want to kill Westerners. But if there is enough Islamist oil money moving around, sooner or later, they will look the other way.

I think your concern is well-founded.

It’s worth noting that two of the most powerful empires — the British Empire and the Soviet Union — in the world have tried to pacify Afghanistan and mold it in their own image.

Both failed miserably and ended up getting involved in a quagmire that cost them considerably.

Do we really want to be the third ?

To my mind, the goal in Afghanistan should be to destroy the remaining elements of the Taliban and either capture or destroy what’s left of what used to be al Qaeda.

Nation building in a place that has resisted the effort twice in the last 150 years doesn’t strike me as a good idea.