I agree that it was a horrible mistake, as any unprovoked intervention always will be.

Even worse, it did nothing to topple the USSR except to possible hurry it along some. The country was a walking corpse of a society that was mired in the inefficiencies of a command economy. The only reason this was not apparent to all Americans was that the CIA was charged with keeping our number one bogey-man credible. Up until the very end they told us wild tales of economic power that did not pass the laugh test to anyone paying attention.

I most certainly can. I propose peace. Europe is at peace after generations, upon generations, upon generations of war. The perfect example.

You seem to think that only "libertarians" believe in peace. Is that so?

given that the current interaction is not good?

A. Primarily mutually beneficial interactions

B. No interactions at all

the US of A, for its support of these governments. There were factions, and one that became Al Qaeda chose the far enemy.

But only to attack the far enemies targets abroad. They would never have attacked American civilians in America. Americans were never their target. Only the American government that put troops on Islamic soil and propped up corrupt regimes.

They are not stupid. The saw what happened to the Japs. And certainly didn't even have the Jap's resources. For successful campaigns you fight wars within your means that match your means and style it accordingly. Try reading Clausewitz.

or, 'the beating will continue until morale improves'.

You seem to think that only "libertarians" believe in peace. Is that so?

Of course not. It is just that the current "peace" in Europe is an apparent refutation of your guiding principles.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country. Its trade routes are primarily through Pakistan and Iran. IMO, to maintain its independence, Afghanistan needs both sets of routes to be viable. IMO, as long as the world is applying economic sanctions to Iran, the Iran route is not viable, and Afghanistan is at the mercy of Pakistan. IMO, for the US mission in Afghanistan to succeed, therefore Iran - rest-of-world relations have to be normalized. Which means, the nuclear issue and Hezbollah/Hamas/Israel have to be resolved. IMO, to end US involvement in Afghanistan requires anti-war pressure on the Israel/Palestine and the Iranian fronts.

Sorry Mike, I do not see your point, so I can not answer your question. Could you elaborate?

I've never believed the moon was made of green cheese and I don't believe a single word that has passed through any orifice owned by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Richard Meyers, Karl Rove, John Yoo, Richard Perle, Bill O'Reilly and any other member of the neo con gang. They have consistently lied even when they didn't really have to and yet when they talk about this act of domestic terror disguised as an act of foreign terror they are telling the truth? Ask yourself the same question you're asking others: if they lied about everything else why would they tell the truth about this one thing? And why did Rumsfeld announce to a meeting of military types early on the morning of 9/11 that a 'shocking world event' was going to happen very soon. Another person at the meeting says Rumsfeld never turned a hair when handed a note saying the first tower had been hit. They just went on with 'the day's business'. Green cheese, anyone?

And all this palaver about Al Qaeda: for God's sake wake up. Al Qaeda is an invention of the CIA, just like the Taliban/Mujuheddin which was put together by their allies in the Pakistani secret service to fight the Russians in yet another of America's proxy wars. Osama bin Laden WORKED FOR THE CIA in a organization called MAK. His main task was to keep the money flowing to the Mujuheddin in Afghanistan. Money FROM THE CIA. And your reference to Wahabism is fascinating. The inventors of Wahabism are the Saudis, not the people of Afghanistan. You know the Saudis, don't you? Those men in dresses that Bush and the neo cons were always holding hands with? And you know the bin Ladens, don't you? They were flown out of America when no one else was allowed to fly on 9/11.

The people of Afghanistan tried to move to a government in 1978 that wanted:

1. Land rights for farmers, land redistribution

2. equal rights for women

3. a strong trade union movement to protect workers' rights

The Mullahs (who owned large tracts of land) didn't want any of this to happen. Like all conservatives they didn't want anything to change. Because this 1978 government had links to the Soviet Union the CIA decreed the Mullahs would have their way. Your whole view of Afghanistan and the war on terror is based on lies and distortions of historical fact. America sided with the Mullahs,the Islamic fundamentalists, not the people of Afghanistan. And the people of Afghanistan have paid a terrible price for the CIA's delusions of grandeur. They are just patsies. Zbig Z said Afghanistan was a 'trap' for the Russians but now America is trapped in its own trap. Vietnam, the sequel.

How so? You do not think that there are many paths to peace? Or, perhaps you think that the "good" refutes the existence of the "better"? Otherwise, you are being inscrutable.

Sorry Mike, I do not see your point, so I can not answer your question. Could you elaborate?

For example (in attempt to tie together two of my posts), the "peace" in Europe is supported through many mutually, or partially mutual, beneficial interactions. One of these is the relatively unimpeded trade among the various nations. But this trade is established by a huge multi-national... (and here I can only imply the "B" word, but would not dare write it.) Indeed, I am not completely facetious in saying that "butter" is defined by a multi-national committee.

Glenn, you said,

"Instead, he's being sent to prison for 8 years for having attended Al Qaeda camps, having communicated with Al Qaeda"

If Al Qaeda is known to have plots against the US (911), then aren't those persons who actually join their organization an act to further a conspiracy to engage in criminal behavior? Aren't these persons actually conspirators along with the leadership of Al Qaeda?

I generally like your articles that expose what's wrong with Gitmo and everything else that has gone on with unlawful detention. It just seems to me that persons who actually were attending training camps are actually conspirators to commit violent acts, and should be prosecuted as such.