> One would like to hear more about the danger that the Taliban
> posed to Russia, Iran, China and so forth.
>
> [...]
> Which brings us back to the Unitary Hegemon problem. Did the
> US as such -- assuming there is such a thing, possessing the
> capacity for action -- then act against its own interests? Or
> at random, without regard for its interests? Or did one
> gang of elite gangsters have an interest that the other gangs
> didn't share, and was that gang able to take the Marines
> out for a joyride, either because they Bogarted the other
> gangs or because the other gangs didn't much care?
>
> The third hypothesis seems the most likely to me, but
> it's all conjecture. I'd like to see a coherent account
> that gives *any* intelligible and credible explanation
> for the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. I would greet
> it like a long-lost brother.
>
> The idea that the rag-tag Taliban was a "threat" to every
> great power in the world doesn't ring true for me, alas.
>
You contradict yourself here. First you say that the architects of the Afghanistan invasion believed it was in their "interests" to topple the Taliban. Then you insist that the Taliban posed no "threat." But obviously the Taliban must have posed a threat to somebody if that somebody believed it was in their "interests" to topple the Taliban.
The question is what kind of "threat." You don't say so here, but implicitly you seem to be saying that while you don't know for sure what "threat" these people perceived from the Taliban, whatever it was it *surely* must not have had anything to do with the fact that the Taliban was hosting terrorists who organized spectacular international attacks against the US and elsewhere.
I have to say that that's a weird interpretation. Aren't spectacular terrorist attacks exactly the kind of thing that countries usually perceive as threats? Here you have (1) a clear case of a country where attacks were being organized against various targets; followed by (2) an invasion of the terrorist-hosting country by a recent target of one of the attacks. What exactly seems so incredible to you that (2) happened because of (1)?
This sort of reminds me of pro-Israel types who insist that whatever the reason for Palestinians' attacks against Israel, the reason couldn't possibly be the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel - must be something else.
SA