Meanwhile, back at the previous "central front in the war on terror"

The BBC for June 5 reports that

US-led troops are facing an increasing number of attacks from militants in the south of Afghanistan, US officials say. ...

He said Afghan insurgents appeared to be operating from bases within the country, rather than mounting raids from neighbouring Pakistan.

The coalition was also considering boosting its presence in the north, so far considered a relatively safe area.

Such a waste. A waste of lives, of blood, of money, of goodwill, even of time. Yes, yes, yes, the Taliban were (are) a genuinely nasty crew, even though our original declared reason for attacking Afghanistan had nothing to do with them except to force them to surrender bin Laden; Bush even stated "We are not looking to replace one government with another." (Something like Iraq was invaded because of WMDs.) But what have we actually accomplished? I mean really accomplished, other than making life a little freer and safer for those in Kabul at the expense of the safety and lives of those outside it?

I know I quote myself a lot, but I think this fits. On October 19, 2001, in the early stages of the war on Afghanistan, I wrote this to a friend in the UK:

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, I remarked to more than one person that Osama bin Laden had done something that would have seemed impossible just days earlier: He had turned the US into the victim in the eyes of the world, including much of the Muslim world. In that moment, we had become the wronged innocents. Think of the opportunity, the political opening, that provided. We have blown that and big time. Now we're back to being the bullying superpower, stomping around the world, not caring who we step on so long as we get our way. ...

So much we could have done differently, so much we could do differently. And none of it is happening. It's really, really depressing.

It's still true.

Footnote: The BBC also says that five relief workers of Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), including three foreigners, were killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday, leading the group to suspended its operations there. (The first link is to the international group, the second to the US chapter.)

I have trouble understanding the thought process by which it seems to make sense to murder unarmed aid workers whose genuine interest is in helping. And I don't want to hear any crap about they're actually "imposing Western values." That's callous, calculating, claptrap (especially since two of the victims where Afghanis) designed to excuse bloody violence and I won't have it.

I guess the truth is, we're not the only people who substitute symbol for reality.