Baghdad Redux?

Nearly 70% of Americans agree with the new president's decision to add another 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, according to today's Washington Post. While the increase is only about half of what President Obama requested, the number represents a significant sea change.

While an almost equal number of Americans, 60%, said that we lost more than we gained by the occupation and plunder of Iraq, an astonishing 44% still think that Iraq is an integral part of the so-called war on terrorism. And many also expect greater success to follow a surge in Afghanistan, as they believe it did in Iraq.

One wonders if Kabul will be the next Baghdad with Karachi following close behind. Will the role of the U.S. in this millennium be that of an empire that profits by promoting global instability? Or will the empire strike back?

It's hard not to think back to Korea and Vietnam, and then substitute Iraq for Korea and Afghanistan for Vietnam. One also can't help but think of LBJ, who followed in the footsteps of JFK, a president who had a plan to end the war. LBJ multiplied American presence and casualties, exponentially, in the name of ending the Communist (read "terrorist") reign in Southeast Asia.

Any country that is led by its defense department can expect to accomplish little more than to administer last rites to its domestic policy.

We'd like to think President Obama will sidestep the roadside bomb and military quagmire of Afghanistan, but war being the racket that it is one can't help but wonder if that is possible.

This lust for power, in the final analysis, may be all that remains of the human race.