When Is A Just Cause Not Colonial?

Eric Margolis has a piece out about Afghanistan. Interesting as usual, he concludes with this statement:

"Both Barack Obama and John McCain are wrong about Afghanistan. It is not a `good’ fight against `terrorism,’ but a classic, 19th century colonial war to advance western geopolitical power into resource-rich Central Asia. The Pashtun Afghans who live there are ready to fight for another 100 years. The western powers certainly are not."

This confuses me a little. How can they not know it's a 19th century colonial war? Or are they being disingenuous? I have a hard time believing they would be naive.

Furthermore, let's go back to 9/11. The world seemed to be in agreement that Afghanistan, as a failed state, was a breeding ground for terrorist organizations and governments friendly to it. Was this propaganda? Was it misguided? How did and at what point did 9/11 become the leitmotif for colonialism? In a more macabre fashion, the sentence reads as though, it can be implied, the Americans and the West were sitting around "waiting" for an "excuse" to go into Afghanistan. Brought to its logical end, does this mean 9/11 was used as a pretext to go into Afghanistan?

I'm not disputing good old fashioned colonial reflexes may be at work here but the statement raises more questions than answers for me.