Hey, this theme, it seems familiar

You know I don't even like patchouli oil and Birkenstocks but I sure wish there were some campaign promises the President was more committed to keeping than others. Nevertheless, given the ever disturbing list of nightmare choices available, this sure sounds familiar (America: Start a War Party vs. Continue a War Party) (via Digby):

Q General, why should the U.S. expect to succeed in Afghanistan where other superpowers have failed?

GEN. MCKIERNAN: ...especially with the history of Afghanistan, there's always an inclination to relate what we're doing now with previous nations and history that have been in Afghanistan for other reasons. And I think that's a very unhealthy comparison.

We're in Afghanistan with the support of the Afghan people, to bring stability and a better future to that country. That's a, certainly, far different reason than, say, for instance, the Soviets were in there.

Okay, how many ways is this disturbing?

It's unhealthy to look at, well, history?

"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
- Unidentified Bush Adm. official to Ron Suskind

As opposed to those non-empires; Alexander's Greece, Tamerlane, the Mongols, the Ottomans, the British, and the Russians - both Czarist and Soviet. Their version of reality in Afghanistan went awesomely.

Meanwhile, the statement about what the Russians were doing in Afghanistan...uh, that's also patently false. You might not have liked the fact it was the Soviet Union doing it, but it's pretty clear from their perspective the reason they were there was stability and a better future to that country.

But who am I but just a dirty effing hippie who's read some history?

[cross-posted at Firedoglake]