I thought that's what we did, albeit with a smaller force because it did not have a modern army and also because we had to improvise an invasion force in a hurry and the country had no seaports or convenient staging areas like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It didn't have any oil, either.

We were doing fine there until we started bleeding off troops for Iraq. Now it looks like things are starting to unravel there, too. You will recall that we even had Iranian cooperation for a time (Teheran had no use for a nest of Sunni fanatics next door). GWB's saber rattling put a stop to that. Rumsfeld/CIA rivalry also played a big role there. But the full extent of how we lost Afghanistan probably won't be known for a while, with both the press and the administration obsessed with Iraq.

Afghanistan was necessary for national honor, we had to show the world the Taliban were not going to get away with harboring Al-Quaeda after 9/11, and to a great extent that mission was accomplished. But the political situation was different, too. There was no central government after the Taliban left and the nation was inhabited with dozens of ethnic and language groups, not just three. It didn't seem as easy or as valuable a prize, strategically or politically. Right now,it's hard to supply and with no oil and no borders on to any Arab country, it's strategic value is further diminished. It doesn't even pose a serious threat to Iran. That's why we continue to remove troops for Iraq and pass off the fighting to questionable NATO forces.

TB, the fulll extent of this debacle is not going to be known for years.