David Dayen:

This is the second major negotiation with a foreign government over a continuing military presence that the Obama Administration has undertaken. And it's running into the exact same problems as the first one. Gareth Porter, an indispensable resource on these matters, reports that the Karzai government wants assurances against night raids that the US is reluctant to give:

Nearly a year after the Barack Obama administration began negotiations with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai on a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014, both sides confirmed last week that the talks are still hung up over the Afghan demand that night raids by U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) either be ended or put under Afghan control.

Karzai has proposed the latter option, with Afghan forces carrying out most of the raids, but the U.S. military has rejected that possibility, according to sources at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

Karzai's persistence in pressing that demand reflects the widespread popular anger at night raids, which means that Karzai cannot give in to the U.S. insistence on continuing them without handing the Taliban a big advantage in the political-military maneuvering that will continue during peace talks.

The dilemma for both the United States and Karzai is that the United States has been planning to leave SOF units and U.S. airpower - the two intensely unpopular elements of U.S.-NATO presence in the country - as the only combat forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

Last week, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Karzai reiterated that he wanted to end US-led night raids, as well as the US taking and holding Afghan prisoners.

As for the Koran-burning incident, I'd say it was stupid and insensitive - which it certainly is - but I would also say that when your profile is that of the bully who can do whatever it wants, anywhere it wants, there are going to be people who can't draw the line on any grounds, much less ones that involve Islam.

But what we don't need is more $hit like this.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.  On the one hand, staying there seems to end up with cr@p like this, more people getting killed, and limited progress.  On the other hand, if we "abandon" them, again, what's to stop the exact same thing from happening all over again? What's to stop it from happening if we stay? Nation-building sounds well and good but you can't do it if it's not safe, or if they are just going to blow it up, or if they only build bases, or if the people don't seem to want it, or if you need the resources desperately at home.

Then there are the neverending stories about what happens to the people (women) there, and the question of whether we owe them anything - or if we just want to help so bad we can't see straight to the fact that it's useless.

This whole clusterf*ck is just depressing as hell.  And then there is Syria.  Some days I just hate reading the news.

This whole thing brings me around to the broader question, is what role, if any, does the US have in playing world-cop?  And to be clear I'm talking about human rights issues here not the drug war.  That is the point of the UN is it not?  We're not supposed to stand idly by.  But maybe we're not the people to do it, or maybe we're not capable of it, and maybe it's no longer our job.  I just don't know.  It seems like there is too much cr@p to even bother, but then when/where is the time to draw the line?

I guess the answer (for me) comes down to you do what you can do, and don't do what you can't.  It does seem like Afghanistan is slipping further into the category of can't.  No thanks to our own yahoos.

said government did lease arid mountain cave space to osama bin laden and his merry men in tights, but that was the extent of their association, strictly business. when presented with a demand, by the US government, for the capture and extradition of mr. bin laden and his group, suspected of involvement in the events of 9/11, the afghan gov't requested, per the terms of the existing extradition treaty between the two countries, some reasonable proof of the asserted involvement. a normal request, under the terms of pretty much any extradition treaty.

the bush administration decided the niceties of observing treaty obligations weren't manly enough, or they had no actual proof to give the afghan gov't. it's never been real clear which reason took precedence, and it doesn't really matter. it was decided the most expeditious way of getting mr. bin laden et al, was to spend billions of dollars, and expend 1,000's of lives, by invading afghanistan, overthrowing the taliban government, and setting up one that would be more accomodating to bush's demands. and so they did.

7 years, a half trillion dollars, and god knows how many lives later, bush left office. still no bin laden and his merry men, but some really cool pictures for bush's den wall, back home.

afghanistan: the movie! a failed military operation, perpetrated by a failed president, with the collaberation of a willing congress, and millions of angry, duped citizens.

a first run, major motion picture! share the exhilaration, the glory, the massive waste of resources and lives! a cast of (literally) thousands!

We should simply go back to the image the world had of us after WW2 and manage our affairs in a way that does honor to the foresight and sacrifice of our founders.

From Washington, through Lincoln and Roosevelt we had it right. One by one we were solving our problems, and we were well on our way to becoming that "Beacon on the Hilltop" that made us the envy of the world. It took a Democrat, Roosevelt, to show us that there were no problems we couldn't handle if we "put the people first," and a Republican, Eisenhower, to warn us what laid ahead if we didn't.

We are where we are today because we took Roosevelt's accomplishments for granted, and we were too full of ourselves to take Eisenhower's warnings seriously.

Anybody should know though that you can't destroy a Koran at this point.  Box them up and send them to the U.S. and put them in National Archives?  Unless you don't want anyone to know what was written in them.

One soldier did tell me today that because the Korans were written all over, they had already been desecrated.  I don't know if that is true, but do two wrongs make a right?

We're sending hundreds of thousands of troops who are largely ignorant of these cultures to invade and occupy these countries. That in itself goes a long way to inciting extremist activities.  These stories are just the details.

Turn the situation around and imagine the US invaded & occupied by Afghani or Iraqi troops imposing what they think is a better system upon us. Imagine them plodding through our streets and towns with their ignorance of our various religious observances and customs or lack of etc. Think anything exetreme might be incited in response?

What we didn't have to do was occupy the nation for a decade and try to rebuild it.   That was debatable and I agree with you now in hindsight misguided.

Did we distract ourselves from the main goal because of Iraq? Yes.   But even so with those additional resources would it have made it any better?

I don't think so anymore.  

As my Navy pilot friend has told me..."When I flew over that country on missions I could only think, what the hell am I doing here".   In his frank words ..."The place is a sh*thole.  And no amount of money is going to fix it if the people don't want it to be fixed".

I do not agree that this has to do with military incompetence.  Rather, I suspect that it is the turn of events that recur as military efforts in far away countries, places that everyone wants to leave & doesn't have the drive of oh-so-long-ago, drag on & on.  The repeated historical lesson.  And, we'll never know what would have happened if our initial action had been pursued without the costly Iraq diversion (read: catastrophe)at Tora Bora & elsewhere.  

I remember the feeling of an outlier when in the first months in Afghanistan because my initial instincet was to oppose it--not on whether it was appropriate, right (which it was under any International Law construct of which I'm aware--but because of the Soviet experience & the experience of other "powerful" countries who stayed too long there. Before its all over, we may well see more end-of-war type atrocities.

not so - they do what they're trained to do: kill, incite, destroy.

The idea of a beneficial war and occupation is complete nonsense. Those creating these fantasies in their minds are delusional. Militarys are good for one thing, and one thing only: killing and destruction. The US military is no different no matter what the BTd's, Freidman's, Drum's and others want to fool themselves into thinking.

And its just stupid to think anything good could ever come of death and destruction - can't happen.