Afghanistan: It Won't Be Pretty. Why Go There?

From the Captain's Journal:

...not only has James Jones told the Colonels that they don’t really need the troops they say they need, and not only is he purveying the wrong narrative about what we have done in Afghanistan, he is asserting that the “new strategy” will turn the campaign around in reasonably short order with Petraeus asserting that it would be the longest of the campaigns in the long war.

Jim Jones is not a serious man. He is clearly way over his head in the office of National Security Advisor, and the narrative that he is peddling is not just wrong - it is dangerous because it is so misleading. It’s time for Jones to tender his resignation as National Security Advisor and allow someone to tackle the job who is up to the job. It’s time for the General to retire.

But that's kinda begging the question.

The real question is whether or not the US belongs in Afghanistan in the first damn place.

In reality, the Afghan/Paki mess is PRChina's, India's and Pakistan's problem (and to a lesser extent, Russia's.) Those countries are in proximity to the problem, not the US. Those countries have to worry about Taliban/Islamofascist wackos. In contrast, the danger to the US is remote and far more controllable (it's called border security.)

This is not all that much different from the Vietnam War.

You recall the mantra: "If Vietnam falls, ALL of S.E. Asia will fall!!"

Yah, well, Vietnam fell. Thailand didn't go Commie. Nor did Malaysia, nor Indonesia. Laos, along with Cambodia, were already lost, or on their way, no matter what happened in Seoul. And now Vietnam is going semi-capitalist, although not 'democratic' by any stretch.

So to repeat: why go there?