US unlikely to launch direct military attack

Hindustan Times ^ | 9/26/01 | AFP

[AGAviator]

If you had "deep cover" agents in Afghanistan right now, would you admit it, or would you deny it?

I find it hard to believe that we utterly abandoned Afghanistan as a focal point 12 years ago, especially since bin Laden has been our public enemy #1 for so long now, and he hangs out there

Here are a few reasons.

(1) Geopolitically, US foreign policy has always considered Afghanistan a backwater, in the Soviet/Russian sphere of influence. The US has always restrained from having too much presence in a region Russia considers its back yard.

(2) Pakistan is far more important geopolitically than Afghanistan, and we have slapped Pakistan with economic sanctions and generally looked down our nose at them more often than not. About the only time we really allied ourselves with Pakistan were when we needed a conduit to support the Afghan resistance, which was done through Pakistan's ISI and not directly by the US government.

(3) Afghanistan is an extremely poor and backwards country which has never rebuilt from the destruction of the Soviets. The first thing almost any Westerners experience is dysentery from contaminated food and water. Then there's the lack of creature comforts, female companionship, and time spent learning languages and customs of a region the US has never thought important. If you were a US agent, would you think Afghanistan is a career path? Why not Rwanda or Zimbabwe?

(4) As far as OBL, do you really think Clinton or any of his foreign policy team were giving serious thought to a long-term strategy to nab Bin Ladin? No, Clinton's response was exactly what you saw. Lob a few cruise missiles, then on to the sexual dalliance.