The truth about Afghanistan

Maybe things aren't as bad as Kerry and the Mainstream Media would have us believe. Here's a great article you really should read, in today's New York Times. (Isn't it amusing how I pretend that someone - other than you, dear husband - actually reads this blog? And yes, that's a pathetic plea for comments...) Anyway, it's a great article (via Instapundit, via Greg Djerejian.)

From the NYT article:

While two out of three Afghans cited security as their most pressing concern in a poll taken this summer by the International Republican Institute, four out of five respondents also said things are better than they were two years ago. Despite dire predictions from many Westerners, the presidential election, scheduled for Oct. 9, now looks promising. Ten million Afghans have registered to vote, far more than were anticipated, and almost half of those who have signed up are women.

And Greg Djerejian's question is in line with this blog's meme about the "anti-Bush Old Media":

Will Bergen's piece (Bergen, of course, is no Bush apologist) be honestly appraised (or even mentioned) by a quorum of commentators on the Left? Or will they continue to trot out the tired and convenient shibboleth that Bush bungled Afghanistan because of the Iraq adventure?

In my field (Industrial Psychology), we like to say that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior (under similar circumstances)". Given that, I'm predicting that the answer to Greg's questions are 1) No, it won't be mentioned by the left, and 2) Yes, they'll continue to trot out the old "Bush bungled" shibboleth. Kind of a no-brainer there, isn't it?

Here's one more thing you should read; follow the link.