Hillary's material-world fantasy

Materialists like Hillary Clinton will never be able to understand Islam, nor deal with it as the legitimate threat it represents to western civilization.

Her interview on "Good Morning America" Thursday is a vivid illustration of how her worldview prevents her from seeing the tragic reality of the Afghan quagmire of which she is an architect.

On what does she base her hope for bringing non-Shariah order to Afghanistan? Listen to her own words: "I am increasingly convinced that many of the lower level Taliban, young men who frankly went to fight for the Taliban because they got paid more than they could make anywhere else. I believe that they are, in increasing numbers, laying down their arms and coming back into society."

She believes in the power of money. It's all about material things. This is why the Taliban has been successful – because they pay their soldiers more. Presumably, all the U.S. has to do is to offer higher wages and these Islamic zealots will risk death, banishment from their families and ostracism from Allah to cross over to the other side.

This is the secretary of state!

TRENDING: 'Situation is completely unstable:' Crenshaw tours border, exposes how bad it really is

She also says there can be no battlefield victory in Afghanistan – which raises the question of what our soldiers are doing there, in ever-increasing numbers.

"It's not World War II, where there can be a surrender on a battleship because of the kinds of enemies and the way they wage war today," she said.

Oh, yes – the way we wage war today. There is the acknowledgement that victory was never a part of the blueprint in Hillary's war. It was always about forcing a stalemate and relying on the good sense of the Afghan people to adopt a western-style system of government. She also admits the Taliban leadership will never see the light: "I think it's highly unlikely that the leadership of the Taliban that refused to turn over [Osama] bin Laden in 2001 will ever reconcile," she said. "But, you know, stranger things have happened in the history of war."

So let me understand this: We went to Afghanistan to get bin Laden and to defeat those who had planned and facilitated the most devastating military attack on the United States is its history. But, after nearly 10 years of engagement, we've decided we can live without exacting justice on bin Laden and on those who shielded him from justice after that attack. Do I have this about right?

At this point, it seems, Hillary and the State Department and Barack Obama will be satisfied to buy off the mercenary fighters the Taliban enlisted to defend their country from a U.S. counterattack.

Hillary's materialistic worldview reminds me of the view expressed Sen. Patty Murray shortly after the Sept.11 attack.

The Democrat from Washington told a group of high-school students in her state in December 2002 that the U.S. should adopt Osama bin Laden's nation-building tactics.

"We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world?" said Murray. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

Murray said bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

However, it was only in Murray's imagination that bin Laden was doing these things – building schools, building infrastructure, day-care facilities, health-care facilities. To Murray and Clinton, this is the only way leaders find favor with constituents. They assume any popular leader must have been following their own prescription for power.

And, apparently, that's still the plan for Afghanistan. Get ready for a very expensive welfare program for Afghanistan. That's what Hillary has in mind. After all, that idea has been so successful everywhere it has been tried, right?