Superpowers have a great advantage when they impose war on another country:  They never have to surrender.

Superpowers have a great DISADVANTAGE when they impose war on another country:  They never have to surrender.

Whether it wins a war or loses a war, a superpower can keep fighting without ever surrendering, without ever stopping, without ever acknowledging that the purpose for fighting the war (assuming there was one) has long since ended or the objective is no longer obtainable or realistic.  “Winning” or “losing” are ultimately irrelevant to a warring superpower because it can keep fighting as long as it wants.

There is no greater threat to the security of a superpower than for its leaders to continue fighting in a conflict long after that superpower lost the war. To continue fighting long after any chance to achieve a strategic advantage is lost.  To continue fighting long after there is any justification for the destruction of another country and the destruction of our own resources

By all objective analysis, the United States lost its war on Afghanistan shortly after it began.  The political leadership at that time, such as it was, announced that it would fight a “war on terror” in Afghanistan to make the United States safe from another 9-11 type attack. It was a war to protect the United States – to make us safer.  Indeed, why else does a civilized country go to war but to protect itself from the threat of destruction at the hand of another country?  By the end of 2002, despite toppling the Taliban, which was a feeble and the most recent political entity to claim control of Afghanistan, the strategically naive Bush abandoned any objectively reasonable policy that could have led to a safer United States. The haphazard occupation squandered any opportunity to achieve something constructive from our violent presence in that country.

By those “measures” — by the US’s own stated objectives — we lost the war before President Obama took the oath of office.

No matter what we do in Afghanistan now, the enormity of our killing, our lost resources and the hatred we have engendered have made the U.S. less safe. We have nothing to gain by staying and only the waste of resources and pain and suffering to inflict on Afghanistan if we continue the occupation. The only mission that will make the U.S. more secure in 2009, is a rapid withdrawal and a much needed and overdue honest discussion of the failures committed in the name of U.S. security over the past eight years.

The continued failure to acknowledge that the “war” to make the U.S. safer was lost long ago, is ultimately an acceptance of that defeat. It compounds strategic losses caused by failed political leadership. The days of countries fighting until one could fight no longer are essentially over. We cannot expect that parties will meet at some point on the USS Missouri where officials recognize the end of a war.

Today, wars will end when men sitting behind desks, often many time zones away from the fighting, decide that there is no political strategic advantage to continuing the investment in bloodshed. We had no hope and no expectation of this type of (rudimentary) political strength or strategic vision from the last administration. Sadly, we have every reason to demand it from the current one.