Call me a cynic but this interview is the fourth or so pieces I have read in the last 48 hours-all of which seem to admit Anglo American mistake in undermining to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or calling for close cooperation between Russia and the West. I do not believe that this is going to happen. Obama is listening the proponents of the U.S imperialistic ideology of Full Spectrum Dominance over the world and Eurasia in particular. It is according to their dictates- and not according to lesson of the Soviet experience- which determined the American military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979-which continue to this day. It is pity that this interviewers did not ask the congressman that about the fact that the man who in 1979advised the Carter administration to intervene in Afghanistan is also the same man who advised President Obama to escalate U.S military aggression in Afghanistan and to Pakistan as well. This man is a fanatical Russophobe. Shall I need to name him or his son? I think not; RT know who this man is.

Whether the President's policy is sound or not will be determined by history. What I found telling about the interview was the reporter's use of "Barack Obama" yet "President Karzai". Evidently american raised (or educated) she is likely aware of the "assumption of diminutive" which a reporter - being impartial - should never make. While not conclusively indicative of a prejudice it certainly is evidence of bias. Good luck being taken seriously.

The US lost 'the hearts and minds' of the Afghan people less than a year after the invasion. After a further 7 years of kicking down doors, not delivering on promises, leaving 'friendly' villages unprotected against foreign fighters, trying to convert devout Muslims to Christianity, and 'accidentally' killing civillians, just how do they think they can turn things around? Simple - they don't expect to. The Afghan occupation has been revealed as a 'strategic' occupation - to hold this important land mass in order to, amungst other things, 'contain and threaten' Iran, destabalise (and physically attack) Pakistan, control possible oil transit routes, and 'deny' Russia the opportunity to become 'involved' in the area. Any millitary action against terrorists / freedom-fighters / Jihadists / Taliban / etc is to control and dominate this land - not to 'help global security', not to 'catch' Bin Laden, and not to destroy the make belive army of 'Al- Qeada'. What excuse will they give for staying there next year - to stop Pakistani Nukes being stolen by the Taliban perhaps?

Jim are you sure that winning "hearts of minds" was ever part of the United States strategy in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Muslim world? Let me bring less the reported case of Somalia. In 2006, after 18 years of endless misery, Somalia formed the first government. Even though most members of this group were the sons of local well known and well respected Somalia families, the United States did not like the peace this group brought to the country because they were called the Union of Islamic Courts. The United States sponsored the overthrow of this group by using Christian mercenaries from Ethiopia backed by U.S air and naval power. Once inside the country, the Ethiopian troops have committed most heinous forms of vandalism: rape, looting and massive destruction of the local institutions. The United States has moved to Somalia after the Soviets left that country and were the main backers of the long serving dictator, Siyad Barre. Do you think that American military and policymakers did not know how ordinary Somalis will read the occupation of their country by Christian troops from Ethiopia? Do you think despite having singular focus in controlling the strategic Indian Ocean waters of the Horn of Africa, the U.SAmericans had and wants to win the "hearts and the minds" of Somalis? I think not. In fact, I am convinced Americans have not developed the political and social resources required for winning the hearts and minds of people with values and traditions different from that of the United States.

It is not possible to impose will; true. But this is not the purpose. As the managers are here fond of saying, you cannot change people, but you can change their behavior. The objective is to stay, and in 100 years or so, be able to influence the whole region. The purpose of the occupation is --- occupation. If things go good --- need to stay. If things go bad --- of course you cannot cut and run. "We will never abandon you", the motto goes. And the natives would like to be "abandoned", but no such luck. As in Iraq, Afghanistan will stay occupied for as long as the occupying powers pursue the policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. Over time, occupying contingents will be inside modern day castles, sending drones --- in the best style of Empire.