And so, we too have acceded — inevitably, it would seem — to the fact that Afghanistan is “the graveyard of empires.”
The list of invaders, we being the latest, is very long and impressive, a list that includes, but which is not limited to, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the British Empire, on three separate occasions, and the Soviet Union, also on three separate occasions.
While some of the above have had varying degrees of success, it is said that, because of fierce tribes and the mountainous terrain, it is “virtually impossible,” as Akhilesh Pillalamarri said in “The Diplomat” about four years ago, “to hold the region down for long.”
I remember our late editor, Ev Rattray, saying in the last century that I should in this column avoid “Afghanistanism,” to wit, that it was easier to write about what was going on in some far distant corner of the world that no one here much cared about than it was to wrestle with a local issue.
Though it can fairly be said now that all news is local, and that, ironically, our 20-year stay in Afghanistan testifies to that.
There was a heated debate on the News Hour last night concerning our announced departure — with a retired general convinced that we should go and with two civilian experts convinced that we should stay.
You could be forgiven, then, for wondering how many years would be enough if we couldn’t effect all the changes we had wished for in the past 20.
The president has said we have denied terrorists a haven in that country, “the main mission,” and that we will continue to be vigilant when it comes to that.
So much for “Afghanistanism,” all news being local now.