American Attack in Afganistan why?????

Over the years I have heard 10 or more reasons, but not one that is convincing. “This

will not end well,” George Will wrote, and I agree with that. Yes, President Obama inherited the Afghanistan war, but he has dug himself in deeper, and as they say he owns it now. It will be hard for him either to win it or to extricate us.
At first it was retaliation for 9/11. They should “get the people who attacked them,” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. It is the one reason that Americans understand and do accept. I was certainly in favor of the Afghanistan invasion of 2001, and perhaps that’s why Obama called it the necessary war. Striking at al Qaeda made sense in a way that invading

Iraq never did. But that was a reason for going into Afghanistan, not a reason for still being there eight and a half years later.

When Their bombing missions and commando raids met with uncertain success, the rationale for expanding the war shifted. It was said that They couldn’t let this evil thing called al Qaeda have the run of a whole nation to plot further attacks. That meant They had to get control of the whole country.
Of course you don’t need a whole country — Afghanistan is about the area of Texas, with a population of 30 million — to plan an assault. And even if you do, it doesn’t have to be Afghanistan. How about Yemen or Somalia? Or failing that, an American motel. Some of the Saudi hijackers met shortly before 9/11 in a Florida motel, others at various addresses in Virginia.

The plot succeeded not because they were free of a meddling government but because they enjoyed the element of surprise. They were willing to commit suicide in the planes they had seized — something new in the history of hijacking. The pilot’s cabin won’t be so easily reached in the future.
It would have been nice if their 2001 aerial bombardment of Afghanistan and cave raids on al Qaeda had killed Osama bin Laden right away. Then They could have withdrawn victoriously. I’m afraid that in the end they may be reduced to retreating indecisively, even ignominiously.

Incidentally, Americans can’t rule out the possibility that bin Laden is dead, as Angelo Codevilla has argued. The CIA, surely, has too readily accepted recordings of “his” voice as genuine. Why not insist on video before accepting anything? The national security establishment may want to preserve a formidable foe, just as the WHO loves a new flu virus. Some may recall that the CIA grossly exaggerated Soviet GNP — by a factor of 10, I believe — right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Analysts may be playing the same game now with bin Laden.In November, Obama agreed to a troop buildup in Afghanistan, opting for “counter-insurgency” rather than “counter-terrorism.” Probably not one American in a thousand understood that. It means “enhancing the military, governance, and economic capacity” of the region, Obama said.

Americans cannot win this war for an important cultural reason: theirs is an increasingly feminized culture, so they cannot take the casualties.
For Americans Asian wars will not be sustainable. If the (masculine) British and Soviet empires of the 19th and 20th centuries could not handle Afghanistan then, I don’t see how their feminized culture can do so now.

It is not their duty to give Obama cover on the grounds that a war calls for patriotism, not partisanship. Great errors of judgment must be pointed out, not glossed over. Democrats in Congress will probably want to get out of this war ahead of the Republicans.