Just as we get the word that President Obama will probably decide to send more troops to Afghanistan—but not as many as the 40,000 requested by Gen. McChrystal—I have seen three reports in recent days that point to the absurdity of such a step. Consider these headlines: “U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War,” “US to Pay Taliban to Switch Sides,” “U.S. Continues Quagmire-Building Effort in Afghanistan.”

The first comes from a fine article by Karen De Young in The Washington Post (10/6/09), reporting on the agonizing decision of Matthew Hoh, a young Foreign Service Officer and former Marine captain, to resign his post as the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul Province. Hoh chose to resign because he “lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.”

His observations on the ground led him to conclude that many Afghans are fighting the United States largely because our troops are seen as an occupying force intervening in what is essentially a civil war. And it is a civil war, not between our guys and the bad guys, but with every valley and village running its own war with shifting alliances and changing enemies. Many of these people are Pashtuns, the largest and traditionally dominant ethnic group. They will fight each other if left alone, but will unite to fight invaders like us.

The second article is from the BBC news website (www.bbc.co.uk, 10/28/09), reporting on new legislation that authorizes U.S. commanders in Afghanistan to do as their counterparts in Iraq have been doing: pay off the opposition to get them to stop fighting the Kabul government (and our troops). Now, paying off the opposition does seem to have calmed things down in parts of Iraq (recent Baghdad bombings notwithstanding), and thereby provided us with an opening to carry through with the agreement we made with the Iraqi government to get our troops out of there. Maybe it can work in Afghanistan too. But unless we use it, as in Iraq, as an opening to get out, we will have locked ourselves into a prolonged blackmail scheme. There is no way, in either country, that a stable and non-corrupt regime can be built on the foundation of blackmail.

This leads us to the third article, a satirical piece from The Onion (www.theonion.com, 10/27/09). The fictitious US president is quoted as saying, “We’ve spent a lot of time and money fostering the turmoil and despair necessary to make this a sustaining quagmire, and we’re not going to stop now. It won’t be easy, but with enough tactical errors on the ground, shortsighted political strategies, and continued ignorance of our vast cultural differences, we could have a horrific, full-fledged quagmire by 2012.”

The fictitious Afghani vice-presidential candidate is quoted as thanking the Americans: “Not only have they created a lawless environment that has allowed us to capture 90 percent of the opium market, but their heroin habits have made a few of us very rich. I love the Americans and I hope they stay for many years. Many, many, many, many years.”

We know we have a problem when satire cuts so close.