Editor says, what if Barack Obama had to justify the perceived failure of the Afghan Mission in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

David Atwell commented on 2009-12-12 01:10:19 ~ Sounds like history repeating itself in so many ways...

Scott Palter commented on 2009-12-12 01:27:32 ~ absent direct Pakistani support Taliban lacks the firepower to take Kabul from the Northern Alliance.

Stan Brin commented on 2009-12-12 01:29:03 ~ Makes no sense. How is the Taliban supposed to do this? Remember, most are foreign "stooges" themselves. There is a big difference between making a lot of trouble with IEDs and operating openly under the eyes of US air power. That's how the Taliban lost the first time.

Todayinah Ed. commented on 2009-12-12 01:35:57 ~ Interesting comments, thanks. The post is predicated on the POD that the US terminating military involvement in Afghanistan some time during 2009. If the outcome of the decision wouldn't result in the fall of the Northern Alliance, then surely pulling the troops out is exactly the right thing to do and earn the Peace Prize, as I suggest?

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-12-12 03:01:32 ~ I don't know that I'd call the Karzai government a "stooge" regime (except, perhaps, in the Moe-Larry-Curly tradition). I also don't think leaving Afghanistan amounts to abandoning the effort to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, considering that in our timeline, Al Qaeda is at present not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. (Some confusion on this score has been caused in the bast by the fact that there are actually different "Al Qaedas" running around: the name simply means "The Base," and is used by some groups which seem unconnected with bin Laden.)

Eric Oppen commented on 2009-12-12 07:27:03 ~ They might just as well have admitted that they were giving the Messiah the Prize for not being Dubya-the-Antichrist.