Another unimpressive and unsubstantiated commentary from Robert Scheer. His attacks are strongly worded, but hold little water as they rely more on recycled rhetoric than fresh information. The crux of the piece is Scheer's unlettered comparison of U.S. presence in Afghanistan under previous presidents to the war in that country prosecuted under the George W. Bush administration. His apparent disregard for the difference borders on offensive.

Scheer draws a parallel between the US involvement in Afghanistan in the 80's with our current military and political mission there. The reality is these two are not analogous at all, and it's unfair to compare them at the level Scheer does.

Stern words of warning to the Obama campaign. On the informative side this article informed me (or reminded me) that Carter had some hand in arming the mujahedeen/Taliban cum al Qaeda although I think there is still evidence that prize should go to Reagan --here is just one article http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the)

Very well written piece of far-left, revisionist sophism. There is some value in the piece--it shows how convincing people who effectively use words can be, if readers are not well informed. Scheer has taken a laundry-list of half-truths and constructed a specious argument. He in no way substantiates his initial contention; he conveys only his shallowness and lack of willingness to address complexity. Life is not made up of absolutes and expressing a perspective like this is not really benign--it is actually harmful. Not everyone who reads it will know enough history to question it.