Afghanistan is a place with many sad stories and we are watching the most recent sad story play out in front of our eyes on the streets and airport in Kabul.  Am I sad about it?  A little, but I just cannot bring myself to blame Biden for my sadness.  For the longest time now, i have been told we were training and supporting an Afghan army (300,000 in number) that should have been able to defend its territory against the Taliban.

Now I am being told that everyone (the generals, pundits, press) knew that the Afghan Army we trained was incapable of defending itself without U.S. guidance and support. 

What?  How can that be?  If that is the case, then what have we been doing these past ten-years (and more) of a twenty-year f------ civil war?

Now I am being told that the Taliban could not have taken over the country if we had kept a minimum footprint of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.  Really?  I do not think so.  The Taliban were simply waiting to see what the new President of the United States was going to do.  If Biden kept the troops there, the only way Taliban could have been held off was to "add" more U.S. and allied troops.  The Afghan army that we were training could not have held off the onslaught without more U.S. support.

I have to look at Afghanistan in terms of globanomics.  In globanomics, war is fought only on certain fronts.  One of which is "prejudicial hatred".  And definitely, there is prejudicial hatred in Afghanistan.  But if you look around the current globe their is "prejudicial hatred" in a number of places, including the U.S., itself.  You do not defeat "prejudicial hatred" with military might.  You defeat "prejudicial hatred" with words, ideas, and logic.  You can argue whether the "word is stronger than the sword" or "the sword is stronger than the word", but in globanomics the belief is in the former.  

Globanomics offers the world a "vision" of how things can be, but it will take the "will of people" throughout the globe to accept that vision.  And sadly, only a handful of people in the world (maybe a little more than 1000) have even heard the term--"globanomics".  

Ironically, in this saddest hour of Biden's new administration, an opportunity has opened up for globanomics.  After the Afghanistan evacuation is complete, Biden needs to finally admit that "globanomics" is something his administration is looking into and thinking about endorsing.  Open globanomics up to the entire world.  Let the world debate and modify globanomics (if accordingly needed), but get the "word" out there.

My true followers know the importance and value of globanomics.  Use Afghanistan as the premise for the real introduction of "globanomics".  It's a before and after thing.  Before Afghanistan there essentially was no globanomics, but after Afghanistan it made things more clear as to why globanomics needs to be implemented--now and not later.  There is no need for another Afghanistan.

Maybe not every nation will get behind and support globanomics initially, but the most "valued nations" will.  And as time goes by, those who did not support globanomics initially will either: (1) come around; or (2) learn the hard way that they are on the wrong side of history.

Is "the word stronger than the sword"?  It is, if that word is: globanomics.