Recently, in a phone conversation with a friend, he made the point that, by providing material support for the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (stinger missiles), we eventually removed the one power [except of course the various Israeli wars against everybody in their area] who was fighting the crazy towel heads back then: ye ol’ Soviet Union.

Only to have them proclaiming victory against that evil empire (for purposes of their own consumption, bluster and wahhab/deobandi propaganda).

Add to that a comment I read or heard (in a documentary) by a military person, who pointed out that the casualty rate suffered by soviets in Afghanistan was at least half that of ours in Vietnam: the difference being, or must have been, that those stinger missiles were doing what they were designed to do, which is take out the helicopters, and with it the advantage held by the soviets prior to the stingers. And without that, and them, the balance shifted and doomed the initiative.

So in that context, it comes as not much surprise, that Russia is happy to “help” in our efforts to supply the Afghan theatre as it brings their obligations to a minimum for something that is far more ‘in their backyard’, (so to speak) than it is ours.

1) Track back to various democrat talking points such as calling Afghanistan “the forgotten war” to undermine the success of the surge, lest there be any rise in capital going to the opposition: a republican congress and executive office.

There was no evidence that Iraq was “Lost” as Harry Reid put it, proclaiming that even before the surge initiative was up and running.

2) Combine that with Ubhamas crude pledge, to get out of Iraq, in a desperate effort to make it consistent with his original opposition to The Iraq war in the first place. Making him seem like Mr. anti-war, “peace in our time”, “bring the troops home” candidate, for the sake of the feminized portion of the electorate he was courting.

Proof is that the platforms of either Dennis Kuchinick, and Ron Paul was to get out of any active war theatre (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) . Trust me, I am loathe and dread to cite either Ron Paul or Denis Cuchinic as examples of consistency, and apologies for the above citations without sources, because they lead only to the ‘what if-ing’ that goes with such things as in- “Why did we go to Lebenon the way we did?’ [unarmed guards stationed at the barracks, in a "peace-keeping"" role, and if we went there, "Why didn't we show up with guns blazing to kill bad guys and break up the buildings they plotted in", etc. (not to mention, "Why didn't we start doing that at once after the bombing?")]

It doesn’t matter, what’s past is past; if anything it shows our reluctance (and that of democracies) to go to war, and that half measures avail us nothing in the long run: a recurring symptom of a democratic republic’s structure.

As it is, neither the russia, the british, nor even Alexander the Great begrudge us our success (so far) in Afghanistan, the question is will this jerk Ubhamas stand back and let our armed forces slog on to victory in this theater, or does he indeed have another agenda, antithetical to the purpose and reason for sending American troops in [historically] to finish wars others have started?

I sincerely hope that I am engaging in a speculation unwarranted where our current commander in chief is concerned.