I actually think this is the most important story of the week. It involves the
supply of US troops in Afg, the future of the US policy towards central asia, and
the destabilisation of a belt of post soviet states that further inflame the Afg
fallout. It’s not being covered - apart from nytimes, with emphasis on how
good it is that the prior regime has fallen, but this regime was supported by
the US. The newcomers seem pro-russia, so this is a major setback for the US,
and there are ethnic issues as well that could boil over (see Bhadrakumar at
Asia Times).

All I’ve seen stateside is irrelevant garbage about colour revolutions and twitter
revolutions. Why do Americans insist on trying to fit every event in every place
into some other paradigm? Are they too stupid to understand the unique
properties of individual events, so that their implications can be properly
isolated? I think perhaps US writers underestimate the intelligence of US
readers and the depth of their interest in intelligent and insightful commentary. This is why Afg is basically misunderstood or not understood at all, with the result there is no support for the war, and the commentary is easily manipulated by the military to force through its own policy objectives. This is why the correct and more constructive responses that would have ended this sucker years ago in a far more productive fashion for all concerned (not to mention while also savings how many (?) lives and how much (?) national treasure).

The United States is in trouble in Afghanistan, and now in Central Asia, and all that trouble is of its own making. Again, this area borders Xinjiang. The Americans must start understanding events in Afghanistan in a regional context.