You are correct about the folly of imperialism: Both Leninists and Anglo-American Imperialists thought it was economically important, indeed, necessary back in the day. Otto v. Bismarck knew better. In any case, well before 1995 every economic historian I know of concluded that Bismarck was right, McKinley and Lenin were wrong.

The closest thing to an exception to that rule was the brief but decisive military importance of petroleum for the Anglo-American and Japanese navies as well as for the US-USSR armies and air-forces in WWII. That obsession continued through Vietnam, not so much in Vietnam -- which has litte or no oil -- but in wars waged at the same time, with little notice, in Indonesia and Biafra. I do not think they had any bearing on the outcome of the Vietnam war or of the Cold War. But, that was not the thinking of Anglo-America, China, or the Soviet Union at the time.

Today, matters in Afghanistan and its environs, China, Russia, Iran, India, and Pakistan should be considered -- as they are being considered by this administration -- in terms of Fourth Generation Warfare generally and the possibility on nuclear terrorism or blackmail in various combinations of those two countries, plus the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Yes, there is something in ancient "Just War" theory and today's SPRI doctrine of "muscular" humanitarian "peace operations" that, I hope, undergirds the Obama phrase "necessary war". But, that phrase is just the beginning of serious thought, not a conclusion to what will be, I also hope, a careful and deep dialog within the administration over the way ahead, which is to say, the exact means of de-escalation and withdrawal from Afghanistan. The "options" -- a silly way to think of war -- are "fast" and "slow".

I see no reason the public at large should not be privy to those deliberations.

There are tactical and operational secrets involved in "population-centric counter-insurgency". But, there is nothing strategically secret about it, nothing to keep from al-Q'aida involving budgets or timetables, say, and real danger in keeping the voters in the dark or out of the loop.

Here is a problem that does not go away:

The cost of continuing operations in blood and money is exquisitely measurable, even predictable. The operational cost of withdrawing again, for the third time, or of falling back on naval bombardment are equally measurable or predictable, ... but not the consequences of doing so, consequences which might reasonably include all sorts of very costly scenarios, including nuclear terrorism or blackmail. There are no such surprises in "muddling through", since escalation is off the table. The only question is when we tire of it.

We will tire quickly if the President is lying to us or, worse, to himself. We will be patient and supportive of him otherwise. President Obama is a Lincolnesque War President.

So, this is no time for glib projections of cost/benefit ratios -- another Vietnam-era intellectual conceit that should go away.