The LA Times can't spend all its time covering for ACORN, so now it's doing what it can to cover for Obama's indecision on Afghanistan. In the Sunday edition, they ran (amongst other thing) a cartoon obviously meant to support a decision to not send extra troops, despite the fact that both the commander-in-chief ("listen to the generals!") and NATO allies ("don't be so unilateral!") think more troops are needed.
[Digression: The Europeans have known this all along, but (as usual) they were hoping to get out of actually doing anything about it, expecting the US to pick up the security bill ... but now that Obama is looking so weak at the knees they're trying to nudge Obama in the right direction by finally announcing they'll send extra troops.]
Anyway, the cartoon shows the skeletal remains of Alexander the Great, the British, the Russians, and finally a still living but unhappy Uncle Sam, caught in a spider's web that is Afghanistan. The British skeleton says to Uncle Sam, "more troops? Why didn't we think of that? Oh wait, we did." The message is clear. A shame the history doesn't align with the political message.
Let's take them one by one: Alexander the Great. A single campaign, which encountered many difficulties, nevertheless succeeded in planting Greek colonies in the region that would achieve independence and rule a successful kingdom in the region that lasted until about 125BC. The cartoon is wrong on two fronts: there was no issue of "extra troops" and the implied failure doesn't exist. The lesson of Alexander the Great is that you can go into the region and reshape it in your own image. Scratch one for the LA Times.
Then the British. Mostly, they didn't give a damn about Afghanistan, except to make sure the Russians couldn't use it to threaten their Indian Empire. Most British movements into the region were along the lines of "march in, kick heads, march out". I'm not exactly sure why the cartoonist thought it would be appropriate to have the words coming out of the mouth of the British skeleton. The times the British suffered real troubles in the region, it was mostly because of incompetent leadership. Again, this is a lesson Uncle Sam needs to learn, but the problem in this case doesn't seem to be with the generals and troops, but with the commander in chief in Washington. I'm reminded of the obituary of Brigadier Ted Hughes that appeared in the Daily Telegraph when he died aged 89, in 1987. He took part in the Third Afghan War, and wrote a memoir that was scathing of the British commanders. He wrote, "The Higher Command acted on the excellent principle that if you can't surprise the enemy it is better to surprise your own side than no one at all." Well, that certainly seems to describe the Obama Regime's approach to its own commanders (25 minutes on Air Force One for the general in command, with Obama doing most of the talking). After capturing Spin Baldak, the British forces improved its defenses and water supply, then marched off again leaving it back in the hands of their enemies. Again, that sure sounds like what Obama would like to do ... spend lots of time and effort to improve the infrastructure etc., so US troops can withdraw. As I said ... some good historical lessons, but not any that let Obama off the hook that justify not sending more troops.
Then the Russians. They were doing quite well until a certain power started arming the locals with things like stinger missiles. Without massive American assistance, the anti-Russian resistance would not have been nearly so successful. The Russian lesson is not that more troops won't solve the problem, but rather that you had better make sure that outside forces aren't providing massive aid for your enemies. A good lesson for the current situation, but not the one the cartoon seeks to make.
So even in a cartoon, the LA Times manages to continues its policy of being a) politically motivated b) factually incorrect and c) not worth the trouble of using it for more than scrap newsprint.
