Afghanistan: theatre of defeat?

Will we ever come to a point where the US government can sell its citizens the concept of 'public security' without having to fight a full-scale war in some corner of the world? By Johnny Taronja.

Iraq was always the 'bad war'. By 2007, only Blair, Bush, a crazed warmonger or an arms dealer were still of the opinion that the Iraq carnage was justified as part of a 'grand', 'just', design. And so now we read that they can't wait to get out, both the Americans and the remaining British troops. Which is good.

But a look at Simon Jenkins' article in today's Guardian warns about sleepwalking into another catastrophic mess, Afghanistan. The constant stream of bad news from Iraq distracted public opinion from the fact that a war has been fought in Afghanistan for the past seven years and that no end appears in sight. In fact it looks like more of a mess as each day goes by. "The conflict is far more intractable than Iraq", writes Jenkins, "since the staple crop is not oil but opium and since the border with Pakistan is hopelessly unstable. Throughout history this land has been the theatre of defeat".

During the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was careful to boost his patriotic credentials by stating that, while still opposed to the Iraq war, he supports the idea of more troops in Afghanistan, lest we forget, a country much bigger than Iraq. That remains unknown quantity.

One question, however, remains open. Will we ever come to a point where the US government can sell its citizens the concept of 'public security' without having to fight a full-scale war in some corner of the world to show that they mean business?