Thanks to our great friends and allies at Get Afghanistan Right, it seems like a real discussion about the wisdom of military escalation in Afghanistan is finally underway. And this discussion isn’t just on progressive blogs and the anti-war left — it’s in the halls of power, where the final decisions will be made. During Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing for secretary of state (transcript here), John Kerry voiced his concerns:

KERRY: Let me begin with Afghanistan, if I may. I am deeply concerned that, at least thus far, our policy in Afghanistan has kind of been on automatic. And I made a promise to myself a long time ago that I would not see all of our conflicts, ground operations in the context of Vietnam. I really try hard. I have an automatic check that says, you know, not everything is that.

But I have to tell you, in the several visits I have now made, escape it as I might, the parallels just really keep leaping out in so many different ways. –snip-

Our original goal was to go in there and take on Al Qaeda. It was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It was not to adopt the 51st state of the United States. It was not to try to impose a form of government, no matter how much we believe in it and support it, but that is — that is the mission, at least, as it is being defined today.

Clinton agreed that Kerry’s concerns were well founded, and added this:

CLINTON: Sitting here today, when I think about my trips to Afghanistan, my flying over that terrain, my awareness of the history going back to Alexander the Great and, certainly, the imperial British military and Rudyard Kipling’s memorable poems about Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, which put in more troops than we’re thinking about putting in — I mean, it calls for a large dose of humility about what it is we are trying to accomplish.

Humility in American foreign policy? Leaders who learn from historical precedents? Now that’s some change we — and the rest of the world — can believe in.