After Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game, which only made me wonder even more, why such a wonderful episode of the world's hsitory is often overlooked and undervalued, as it could explain a whole lot more than merely Europe-centric history of XIX century, and even more - it could very well explain as well a hundreed years after then 1907 Convention... so I thought of this Afghan wars summary that, who knows, might predict the consequences of current events, provided the reasons behind them are similar with a certain adjustement for a different epoch and geopolitical situation.

So how Afghan Cycle works:

1. As an easiest and most straightforward way to get rid of your opponent's influence you organize a seemingly effortless military operation to overthrow an opponent's puppet or whatever Afghan regime you consider not comfortable enough for you.

2. First victorious achievements so loud and solid that the war seems settled.

3. Time has passed, you're so deeply rooted into Afghan soil that's almost impossible to neglect your limitless control over the region. The catastrophe that is creeping on you is unseen nor for average man, nor for eggheaded political analysts whose job is to foresee such things. In the meanwhile an uprising is growing, remaining enemy forces are lurking near your military bases fighting partisan tactics.

4. Catastrophe, nation in despair or in apathy at the very least, many years after it incarnates into smth like Buttler's Remnants of an Army.

5. As the last attempt to fix the situation every effort is made to put your enemy in it's former place, what as you rightfully consider is better than chaos which may lead to unpredictable results. Now the one you've overthrown isn't so uncomfortable anymore as it seemed before.

How it was:

1. 1st Anglo-Afghan War:   Dost Mohammad >  Dost Mohammad

Classic example. Superhuman efforts have been made in order to get rid of Dost Mohammad, whom was retired by Brits and send to India with full pension benefits. In two years, which the British Army spend in celebratio of a 'victory', Dost Mohammad  was put back to his place by the very same Brits.

2. 2nd Anglo-Afghan War:  Sher Ali > Abdur Rahman

First Jihad in Afghanistan. Brits sucсessfully overthrow Sher Ali, but eventually considered the best figure to replace him on it's emir's position is his nephew, Abdur Rahman, who was furiously opposed at first for the reason he was a Kaufman's puppet.

3. 3rd Anglo-Afghan War: Amanullakh Khan > Amanullakh Khan

Failed British plan to overthrow Amanullakh Khan, who came into power on the nationalistic wave of Young Afghans party. The most talantless effort by Brits, which only made an equally anti-British and anti-Russian national leader a Soviet ally.

4. 1st Soviet-Afghan War: Zahir Shah, Daoud, Taraki, Amin > Rabbani, Ahmad Shah Massoud

The most freshest example. How come Soviets managed to put themselves into the situation, which was proven numerous times to be fatale by the British, not without a help of whom? the very same Russian-Soviets. And endless line of political instability, resulted in infamous Storm-333 specop and Amin death. The same scenario led to the rise in power for one of the pro-American (for the lack of Brits) Taliban founders Rabbani and his rival, yet Soviet enemy, Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Lion of Panjshir.

5. 1st Americano-Afghan War: Taliban > Taliban?

And here we go, current war. Ahmad Shah Massoud was killed by Taliban couple days prior to Ground Zero and when 'war on terror' started. Zahir Shak was back from immigration, but the fate was on the Karzai's side. Given recent peace talks between coalition and Taliban currently suspended though, it's no-brainer that one of the Taliban leaders will take place of Karzai before ISAF withdrawal.

Thoughts?

Sounds about right.  Not sure if politically the US government will be willing to go through with it through the end though.  They may decide on the chaos is better if only to put political motivations ahead of global interest ones.

Can't see a Democratic President selling putting the Taliban back in power.  Maybe if the republicans win in 2016.

I think Obama could do it in a second term, similar to making progress on this "missile defense" idiocy. The fact of the matter is that some things just need to be done in regards to foreign policy, stuff that diplomats need to know that the uneducated masses can't interfere with: a Taliban coalition government with narrow control over Afghanistan is one of those things

Maybe if he doesn't care who's in the whitehouse after his second term.   I mean they become the party that "Dealt with the guys who protected the guys who did 9/11."

Which most people will shorten to "They dealt with the guys who commited 9/11".

My read on this is that the public as a whole (including many who profess to be on the right) is weary enough of the war that they'll support a negotiated settlement as long as it doesn't look like we're leaving with our tail between our legs and/or the Taliban don't completely take over after we go (e.g. stick to the negotiated settlement). Only really hawkish voters are going to be mad, and their ranks (even on the right) have been shrunken by Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know, I mean you just admitted in the post above that you see it as something Obama could only make progress on in his second term.

I think the average person really won't understand why we made a settlement rather then just leave Karzai in power.

The difference is that much less noise will be made on the matter if the President isn't up for re-election. I mean, look at the stupid things Romney's saying about Russia now that that missile defense flap came out. This sort of thing is routine foreign policy that no-one would really care about, but the talking heads will make them care if they have a vested interest one way or another (i.e., let's boot this guy out of office).

Nobody blasted Bush's handling of the Georgia-Russia thing late in his term, and it didn't even really factor in on McCain, whereas the Left would have accused him of playing nice with Putin against the interests of the Georgian people or something if the same thing had happened in 2004.

Honestly I haven't paid an attention to a thing Romney has said for months.  Outside of reading looking up the context of quotes that seem out of context just to see the proper context.

I'm more likely to vote for Roseanne Barr then I am Mitt Romney. 

Mitt Romney really isn't any different then Obama in most of the issues I dislike about Obama.  The only reason I'd vote for him is because when he keeps course on a number of issues Obama was moving on, mainstream Democrats will suddenly be pissed off about it again.

Most mainstream Republicans are fake fiscal conservatives, but most mainstream democrats are also fake social/anti military liberals.

A;so, Roseanne Barr is actually running for President, that wasn't a random reference or anything.

Well she's running for a third party, which means she probably won't even be on all the states ballots.

Though granted I think it's the 4th biggest political party in the US.

Taliban is being left in power? O_o