Interesting: Afghanistan the "cradle of empires"

[vaberella]

My title stems from part of the text at link.

Bury the Graveyard
by Christian Caryl
It's the mother of all clichés. Almost no one can resist it. It's wielded by everyone from thoughtful ex-generals to vitriolic bloggers. It crops up everywhere from Russia's English-language TV channel to scruffy Pakistani newspapers to America's stately National Public Radio. The Huffington Post can't seem to live without it, and one recent book even chose it as a title. Afghanistan, we're told, is "the graveyard of empires."

<snip>

One of those myths, for example, is that Afghanistan is inherently unconquerable thanks to the fierceness of its inhabitants and the formidable nature of its terrain. But this isn't at all borne out by the history. "Until 1840 Afghanistan was better known as a 'highway of conquest' rather than the 'graveyard of empires,'" Barfield points out. "For 2,500 years it was always part of somebody's empire, beginning with the Persian Empire in the fifth century B.C."

<snip>

Barfield contends that the Afghans have long understood the tendency of foreigners to view them as untamable savages and have been happy to leverage the stereotype to their advantage. "The Afghans use hyperbole of history to exaggerate strengths in order to deter invaders," he says. "In this case, a poor knowledge of their history goes a long way to convincing others to stay away, but it can be a dangerous illusion." Back in 2001, Barfield says, Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden recycled the myth to themselves -- only to watch Taliban rule, and al Qaeda's safe haven, collapse under U.S. bombing.

<snip>


"We're sick of fighting. We hate war. We want to have a free election," one grizzled -- and illiterate -- warrior told me. "And let's have the United Nations come in and make sure it's fair, so the warlords don't interfere." I heard similar views from many Afghans. Nowadays that vision sounds a bit like a dream, and it's hard to say precisely how many of his compatriots shared it for real, but I can't help recalling the sentiment. One thing is for sure: If we really want Afghans to attain the future they deserve, clinging to a fake version of their history won't help.

The impression I was given by the author is that we should go into Afghanistan and instead of making it independent actually embrace it as a common wealth---which is an interesting perspective. I mean we are spending a lot of money there and we can hold it as a strong military unit. It would eliminate the logistical problem we have if we were to given people amnesty---the idea might actually appeal to some Afghanies (I'm making assumptions here, I could be wrong). But it might be something to think about and discuss. We've talked or a few of us have talked and mentioned the idea of granting amnesty to the elderly, women, and children. But that's hard because of the rule over women---however this alternative will allow the men to maintain their pride (those not part of the Taliban or Al-Queda---allows us to offer more constructive leaders---maybe (I'm know this sounds utterly naive) and might have people side with us to end this nightmare sooner. Again, this is not without it's problems and I'm sure many Americans and DUers would be against it...but it's just an interesting perspective I got from the article.