General David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph the risks to the West would be "enormous" if NATO failed to stabilise the violence-torn country.
"Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world," he said.
"Stabilization" was never the true goal of the US and NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was, for all intents and purposes, disfunctionally stable under the rule of the Taliban.
But certain elements in the White House, under Bush's watch, thought an invasion and occupation would be "cheaper" than paying the price the Taliban wanted for the installation of pipelines to control the flow of Eurasian oil. They got NATO to go along with the gag, and what happened?
The same tactics the US taught the Taliban to use against the old Soviet Union's soldiers have been refined by the current generation of Taliban, and the results for our troops in the field have been lethal.
I find these statements by Richards to be amazingly cynical.
This war is not being fought for the good of either the British or the American people (and God knows, not for the good of the Afghans). We are absolutely on the wrong side of history here, and Richards, as an intelligent human being, has got to comprehend that, at least at some level.
This war is being fought so that certain corporations can install the pipelines to control Eurasian oil, and to protect the drug traffic in the region, from which so many profit so handsomely. Remember; when the Taliban were in power, opium production was nearly eradicated.
Many of the families and friends of kids who have gotten killed or permanently maimed in this effort are beginning to wake up to the ugly truth of what this war is for, and there will be no containing their anger when they see this as the true reality of the war in Afghanistan.