Pat's well documented absurdity aside, what particular part of this article do you disagree with? I understand disagreeing with Buchanan on a philosophica level, and in many cases I do. I just don't see where he's wrong in this particular case.
For starters, he give no credit to the countries that have already extended deployments in the past, or have recently sent troops or extended deployments. Those include more countries than the ones that are drawing down, including such stalwarts as the Aussies and the Poles. He ignored what Tony blair said about the drawdown, that they have achieved stability in the area and can start drawing down. Instead he paints a picture of British troops under attack "daily". He does not give the Brits any credit for the crackdown they initaited last year when violence was flaring in their sector.
He gives short shrift to the stellar work NATO has been doing in Afghanistan. Didn't bother to mention that the Poles are sending in elite forces there now to FIGHT. Doesn't mention that UAE has forces in Afghanistan, or that Jordan is continuing to train Iraqi police and security.
Doesn't mention that the eastern euros have stood and continue to stand with us. Or that we are going to put anti missile batteries and bases there.
He prattles on about this BS about America being an empire.
And he give no hint on the importance of the mission, and has defeating terrorists.
Other than that its fine.