Good points.

I think we both know a surge/escalation is inevitable, though.

Question is, will the President lay out a compelling case to the American people with concrete and achievable goals, or will he cripple his Presidency and spend more of our precious blood and treasure with dithering and half-measures?

Unfortunately, there is no compelling case to be made.

The question is will they concoct some bullshit reasoning that will buy them a little time. With the help of the corporate media there will, of course, be a bullsthi line of reasoning about why we have to kill more of our sons and daughters, waste more of our money and further bankrupt our nation while domestic needs go unattended.

What is needed is for the people to hit the streets and demand an end to this now grotesque and wildly costly bloodletting.

Yep. Escalation is pointless no matter what it's called. Any number of "experts" have even pointed out in the mainstream corporate media that under no circumstances will the US be able to supply the number of troops required for the "counterinsurgency" strategy to secure anything like a majority of the territory, nor to keep the peace. The idea of escalation is the definition of futility.

I am reminded of the song from back in the late 60's called "War". The opening lyrics were:

"War!

Hooo! Good God ya'll!

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing!"

And those words are still as true as they ever were.

I wish I had an 'in' at the NYT, I would get this published there immediately.

Oops. Her posts. Not 'here posts'. Sorry.

There is one useful comparison with Vietnam to be made: We are trying to prop up a government that has no chance whatever of surviving even for two months without our presence. And such efforts always end badly.

At least Vietnam had harbors. Afghanistan is landlocked and quite isolated, meaning the logistics are much more daunting.

Declare success and leave.

Even though we have so many serious problems to resolve at home -- access to healthcare and education prime among them -- I, for one, could tolerate the expenditure of considerable tax dollar money in Afghanistan IF --but only if -- we used it to build rather than to bury.

I agree with all of your points, Oleeb, but in particular, #4, when you say:
" We could have built factories to employ the people, we could have built schools to educate them, hospitals to care for them, we could have done an endless amount of positive nation building...."

So, instead of saying "we could have" ..... and knowing that Washington is hell bent on saving face in Afghanistan one way or the other, why not, for the sake of discussion, say "we will...."?

Of course I see the irony that we would be repairing infrastructure, building hospitals and school there, rather than here.

Nonetheless, it's hard to say that we have no debt to pay in the Middle East; on the contrary, leaving a rebuilt Afghanistan would serve as an example to the world at large that we have learned something from past mistakes, that we are capable of being responsible.?

All the money in the world wouldn't be enough. Read Grayson's comments. He is spot on. Aid money to Afghanistan is a joke. A well intentioned joke, but a joke none the less.

I agree with you that there's almost nothing we can really do there because of the nature of the way their society is but it would certainly be a better use of money buidling factories, schools and hospitals as opposed to making war. I think that's ww's point and I think we can all agree on that.

Fred, respectfully, you're just buying all that bullshit they're selling in Washington and it isn't worth a dime.

Why on earth should I have to state the idiotic and inadequate arguments of the bloodthirsy war proponents? They are doing that daily on every tv and radio station, in every newspaper and at every Congressional hearing. Everyone is quite familiar with all the rationale they provide, with all the official excuses for the failure of the past 8 years and the official reasons why we must give them an infinite number of years to accomplish the "mission" which is fluid to say the least.

They are wrong Fred. They are just plain wrong. I am as confident now in pointing out how wrong they are as I was in pointing out how wrong they were in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. They were wrong to invade Iraq for any reason and they were even more wrong because it necessitated botching the destruction of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Anyone with half a lick of sense could see that was the case then and I don't see a whole helluva lot of difference now.

Fred, the war is lost and cannot be "won". It really is that simple. Nobody is even pretending it can be won anymore. They are using the terminology of "victory" and "winning" amd impressing everyone with their talk of tactics and strategy but when you listen closely you can see that what they are really proposing is that we must dramtically escalate the war now and keep it going indefnitely based on the bogey man of a potential resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If you (meaning anybody not just you personally) buy that BS then you deserve what you get is all I can say. But I, along with a majority of Americans, don't buy it and don't deserve the very negative consequences of such folly.

If our real objective is to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda in check, continuing to destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan by our presence there is absolutely the wrong thing to do. We are causing the problems we claim to be wanting to put an end to. How stupid can we be? How blind? We could easily nuetralize our enemies on an as needed basis in that part of the world by maintaining an offshore presence and using our video game war toys. But that's not enough for the bloodthirsty imperialist wise men of Washington.

I know that you like to listen to and favor the very serious and smart people who have driven our country into the ditch on nearly every count but I implore you to look at the situation without the filter of officialdom so you can acknowledge the reality. We cannot win no matter what we do. It's time to cut our losses and pay attention to our own affairs. We have no business in that part of the world and what we've done thus far has made all the problems there exponentially worse. The argument that even though we've completely fucked everything up over there so far but that if we leave it will get worse is just not credible when coming from the dunderheads that got us into it to begin with. They said the same thing about Viet Nam for years while people listened to them and none of the dire predictions they had about our withdrawal were true. The predictions they have now are equally false and untrue.

The far greater threat to our country comes not from our leaving Afghanistan but in our staying. It's high time our alleged leaders came to their sense and realized that. Doubling down on a known losing proposition is the height of folly.

Why should we do this when practically every very serious person in Washington and in the media is telling us we must at least stay there forever, but moreover we must dramatically escalate the war if we hope to "win"?

You've got this part wrong oleeb. I haven't really heard anyone discussing what it takes to "win" in Afghanistan. Even McChrystal framed the report to say that we lose if we don't provide an additional 40k troops.

There's a substantial difference in the semantics between "avoiding loss" and "winning." McChrystal's assessment typically does little but invite the day in the not-too-distant future when we are once again told that we will lose if we don't provide another allotment of meat for the grinder. Indeed, even now are reports circulating that indicate the number of troops actually required to "avoid losing" is more like 400k (200k Afghan; 200k Allied troops). The 40k number was chosen simply because it was determined that it probably exists at the upper limit of what the American people might find acceptable - for now.

The absolute, bottom line priority for our policy here must be to do nothing that will further destabilize Pakistan, especially, and the other neighboring states. Inasmuch as that is possible, the security of Pakistan and the others will not be promoted as a consequence of military escalations on their borders and incursions into country.

There are a lot of admirable goals outlined for Afghanistan. And we suffer pangs of guilt for allowing Bush to treat the Afghan peoples so poorly when opportunity was available to really be of assistance. Surely it is our collective responsibility to make it all right with the victims of Bush's neglect, right?

Well, wish as hard as possible that we could fix it all in Afghanistan, it's nevertheless important to understand that there can never be a moral imperative to accomplish the impossible. Nation-building in Afghanistan at the end of a bayonet is simply not possible. And we will most surely invite nothing except death, destruction, and the ultimate loss on all fronts including Pakistan if we don't get this discussion away from the uni-dimensional "War is Peace" crowd and into the hands of the adults and the diplomats.

This interview with Rory Stewart on the Bill Moyers Show is an excellent, albeit sobering, look at the big picture. Well worth listening to what he has to say. It includes his surprising assessment that Obama has no choice but to approve McChrystal's request for more troops - even though it is the wrong strategic move.

This ain't tiddlywinks, folks. There is a tangled web to negotiate here, and none of the options are good. But work them out we must, and thank God in the meantime that it isn't McCain doing the planning with Palin on his flank nipping at his heels. She would most assuredly be complaining he isn't being tough enough to suit her whacko constituency that thinks American military might is always the answer.

Instead, the dilemma we face here will require the intelligence, courage, stamina, and management skills of as masterful a leader as we've known in recent history. Let's pray Obama is up to the challenge, and wish him godspeed in the effort.

I agree with the sentiment- the policy doesn't work. Most of the money would end up going to the corrupt Karzai administration and/or warlords.

Two other things, Oleeb. You mention Biden's preference to target Al queda/Taliban with drones. Isn't that what the civilians hate most, being killed by the colateral damage of drones? And I like the idea that the billions and billions could be given to Afghanis, but most of what we've sent so far hasn't apparently gone to the intended targets. How tough would it be to see the money actually got to 'the people'?

It doesn't tie his, or our Nation's hands, with continued escalation.

Someone wrote recently that Afghanistan has been a failed state since Alexander marched through 2,300 years ago. The one thing that has given this hardscrabble "nation" the facade of unity is consistently making war - successfully - on foreign invaders. Even our own intelligence apparatus is telling us bin Laden is long gone. We need to pack it in and get out. End of strategy!

It's my war. It's your war. All this dissociating is part of what is destroying us.
Obama needs to be a responsible civil servant and see the evident truth: That this war is not winnable, because it has no goal other than "not destabilizing Pakistan"- which, in fact, the war is doing, if by no other mechanism that of pushing Taliban across the border to face a pitifully inept Pakistani Army:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/world/asia/12pstan.html

I have a strong suspicion some of those "Taliban" who entered so easily into Pakistan's prime redoubt did so at the orders of someone in the Pakistani Army/ISI.

It is time for some serious rethink, in particular of the false assumption that stabilizing Afghanistan will stabilize Pakistan.

If by some chance we stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan will unstabilize it:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/diachronic/2009/10/richard-n-haass-agrees-with-me.php

And our children's war.

Wendy, I was walking by one of the greatest universities in America today, Columbia, and was shocked by the closed storefronts, newspapers stuffed in the windows, "For Sale" signs everywhere, moldering.
It's like our futures, our children's futures, are foreclosed.
For Obama to continue this war while our own country is driving itself into the ground is criminal.

Thanks DD. I'd like to nominate you for Publisher and Editor in Chief of the Times. They could use an upgrade in both those departments.

Did you see this opinon by Frank Ritch. Fucking spot on. This quote about sums it up:

But why let facts get in the way? Just as these hawks insisted that Iraq was “the central front in the war on terror” when the central front was Afghanistan, so they insist that Afghanistan is the central front now that it has migrated to Pakistan. When the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Qaeda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen.

And it's also important to point out that Obama is clearly entertaining the idea that our objectives are best met by crushing AQ in Pakistan, and has *not* insisted that fighting the Taliban is the only course of action that achieve our objectives. Fred is just plain wrong on that assertion. Were this not the case, the current debate would not even be occurring and we would be doubling down on the quagmire without discussion of other possibilities. Hopefully Obama has the guts to listen to Biden; we're trying to defeat AQ, not placate Afghanistan. One is possible, the other simply isn't.

I only mention things like drones as viable alternatives that don't require a costly occupation army. The point is there are other, more effective and less costly ways to keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban in check. Don't know how to overcome the problems of corruption and aid not getting through to the people. It may not be possible.

I think a less discussed part of Biden's idea is that specifically countering the Taliban in Afghanistan would not be considered the primary objective, instead keeping the focus on Al Qaeda. If we went that route, attacks against the Taliban would likely be targeted to leaders cooperating with AQ. Generally, the drones vs. AQ strategy doesn't really apply to Afghanistan where there are presently less than 100 AQ fighters.

The strategy in Pakistan is a different monster all together. My understanding in that respect is it's an option between targeted drones and a full on military push by the Pakistani army (i.e. artillery, tanks, mortars, etc.) that tend to be far less discriminating. I think most Pakistanis prefer the current strategy to something akin to what recently occurred in Swat. In Pakistan, there is a strong central government (unofficially) backing our actions up with a local military which makes a world of difference.

The key IMO, is to figure out a mutually beneficial truce with the Taliban that prevents AQ from having free access to Afghanistan. If we are really thinking strategically, we'd then jump one step ahead and start to work on shoring up activities in Somalia to prevent the next logical base of operations from becoming viable and then mop up in Pakistan.

And there are so few chronicling it, especially in the MSN. It is devastatingly sad. I want to blog about the financial sector, too. If it is not fixed, we are toast, while Wall Street parties. And we keep arguing about the Little Bits, like the Nobel Prize, and other minutae. Tell us about the area around Columbia more, please. Separate diary, if neccessary. Too much human tragedy is under-reported, unless it serves a political strategy.

I absolutely agree, oleeb. Upon further thought, this cap seems like a poor idea.

Agreed. Paying the Warlords is tossed around some, with Iraq used as a success story. I'm not entirely convinced; we armed them, then had the weapons turned on people we didn't want killed. Christ, if you think about it, WHAT government could be stable there?

Key point from State Dept. advisor Rory Stewart from the Bill Moyers sleepinJesus link:

Right. Absolutely. And that you can invest 20-30 years in Afghanistan. And if you were lucky, you would make it look a bit like Pakistan. I mean, unless you understand that Pakistan is 20-30 years ahead of Afghanistan,

30 years and we have Pakistan, where the Taliban just took over the military headquarters yesterday and took hostages.

Much of the debate is ideological, in the sense that an individual, based on an overarching philosophical principle, decides what conclusion he or she wishes to reach, and then searches for evidence supporting that conclusion, while ignoring other evidence that refutes it.

Among the non-ideologues, both liberal and conservative, and including many consistent critics of the Iraq war, there is a predominant judgment that we must remain engaged in Afghanistan rather than withdraw promptly. The disagreements relate to how best to stabilize the country to prevent an uncontested Taliban domination, because the latter would provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda operatives intent on destabilizing Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons coveted by the terrorists. Given the firm consensus, it's clear that we won't withdraw soon, but less clear whether Obama will decide to substantially increase troop levels, increase them slightly, maintain them at current levels, or reduce them slightly. He has already excluded a large scale troop reduction in the near future. It is clear that his decision will not be based on "winning" in the sense of a decisive military victory but rather will be directed at averting the kind of instability that would permit Al Qaeda to flourish. I would add, though, that we did win - quickly, decisively, and triumphantly - in 2001, and then lost the initiative through neglect. The claim that war there is unwinnable is conclusively refuted by recent history, but unfortunately, the neglect has now made that particular and easy type of victory unattainable today - hence the more restricted goals.

Although the strategic necessity to remain in Afghanistan until sufficient indigenous stabilization permits us to withdraw is paramount, there are compelling moral dimensions to the same need. Below is a copy of part of a comment I wrote in another thread to reflect my perspective on this, reinforced by reports from one of the fes true experts about attitudes within the civilian population, a native of the region who is not only a long time Taliban expert but actually lived among them for a brief interval some years back, Ahmed Rashid:

The alternative, an Afghanistan under uncontested Taliban domination, is pretty much unthinkable. In a moral sense, it would be a betrayal of the Afghan people, who enjoyed a brief respite from Taliban oppression after our successful campaign in 2001, and who dread and hate the Taliban. According to Ahmed Rashid, a native of this part of the world, and who knows it intimately, most Afghans want us to stay, but at the same time fear the dangers of the resultant combat; they want to die neither from American bombs nor Taliban suicide bombings, and so they are ambivalent. With additional security, they would very much welcome efforts that reduced the power of the Taliban, and permitted girls to go to school again, music to be played, and men to walk the streets without fear of being killed because their beards were not proper.

Of course AQ are in Pakistan now, but they are being squeezed by a newly forceful Pakistan effort to suppress them. If they can simply move across the border to safe havens among Taliban-dominated communities, suppressing them and mainaining stability in Pakistan becomes much harder. To pressure them most effectively requires that they have no easy sanctuary on either side. We agree that the Pakistani element of this effort is needed, and I think most of those advising President Obama, from both the liberal and conservative perspectives, and from military and non-military sources, agree that pressure on the Afghanistan side is also needed. Disagreements relate both to overall strategies for countering the Taliban threat, and to the extent to which Taliban control is some areas is tolerable without allowing them to dominate sufficiently as to provide AQ with sanctuary.

According to Petraeus, it takes 20-25 soldiers per 1000 citizens to run a successful counterinsurgency. That's like 600,000 troops needed if the goal is to defeat the Taliban ... if everything goes well. Them's some hard numbers to shimmy around over or under. It simply can't be accomplished. 40,000 more troops or 140,000 - Afghanistan is HUGE and has 28,000,000 people who don't really want us there. Vietnam was way smaller and had less people, and we were not successful there either.

Those are simple FACTS. There's no ideology, just pure hard logic. What you and McCain advocate is simply killing many more American soldiers, Afghan civilians and people who view themselves as freedom fighters until we finally face the inevitable. All of history is against success. It's illogical and arrogant to think a different outcome would occur in this instance.

So, what's the plan? With 40,000 more troops that still leaves us with around 1/5 the number required to prevail. Even if we count the 100,000 Afghan troops (which nobody seems to) that would leave us with well shy of half the number required. Shall we rub Dick Cheney's bald spot, make a wish and throw our lot in with the myth that American excellence is a magic elixir?

What we need is not a counterinsurgency. What we need is a first class intelligence operation to nab the few Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and to identify when movements are planned. Then we simply need to control the border with Pakistan - and occasionally mop up any stragglers. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT AL QAEDA PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN, just like no WMDs in Iraq. If we finish the job in Pakistan WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM IN AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE WE TOOK THEM OUT. What part of attack where our enemies actually are is so difficult for some people to understand?

It's a vicious circle to argue that we must defeat this or that political faction in Afghanistan to keep Al Qaeda from having a haven. If we never take out Bin Laden and his core, we can never leave; if we do take out Bin Laden et. al. then we don't have to defeat anyone because there's nobody to give a safe haven to. Going after the Taliban instead of Bin Laden is insanity.

If, as you say, the Afghan people hate the Taliban, it seems the only thing helping them grow in power is our presence. But either way, that's a bullshit reason to throw American lives at Afghan politics. Simply put, there are a ton of messed up nations in the world - Guinea comes to mind; shall we invade there too? Nation building is not the American role in the world. If the Taliban is not a threat to us, there is no excuse for imposing our imperial decisions on the course of Afghanistan's political direction. Nobody's son or daughter should be asked to die because many people in Afghanistan hate the Taliban.

Another issue is Afghanistan isn't likely to be the next most attractive destination for Bin Laden, Somalia seems to be. It's a harder for us to operate in at this point, it's awash in weapons and people there are destitute enough to wander out 100s of miles in the ocean to be pirates - he can buy loyalty cheap. There are also a growing number of recruits coming out of 2nd generation Americans of Somali descent which is something Bin Laden is likely eager to cultivate. If Somali Islamists can convince them to come to Somalia and fight - I'm sure Bin Laden could convince some of them to stay put, if you take my meaning.

It isn't ideology - unless you believe that sound tactics and a winning strategy are ideological. The idea of trying to defeat a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan is a loser of an idea worthy of Team Bush .... oh wait, it's being promoted mainly by former Team Bush players, go figure.

Shorter Fred Moolten:

"There's no problem that the American military power has created that even more American military power can't solve."

Death and destruction piled on top of death and destruction. We seem not to have learned a whole lot over the years. It's absurd to be breaking stuff and call it fixing. This hasn't ever worked in the past so I don't see how it'll work now.

Simple-minded much?

I did too, but I don't know that we were wrong at the time. The problem came in when bush et al decided to put Afghanistan on the back burner and even the score with Sadam. By the time they looked at Afghanistan again, it was too late.

Now I fear that Obama is getting sucked in, and there is a really good chance it will be deja vu all over again.

Here's a thought; Obama ought to put out a call for troops to VOLUNTEER for duty in Afghanistan, and only send those who are willing to go...

I agree, we could just end this war, and the only big losers would be the congressional/military/industrial complex.

However, there is a very viable case to be made that the women of Afghanistan need liberating, and many of them would thank us for keeping the Taliban from gaining more power.

It is the one issue that makes a peacenik like me feel at least a little bit divided inside, because the way they treat women over there is abhorrent, very near to slavery in some places.

If there is any one redeeming factor to this "war" it is that Afghani women have had at least a glimpse of relief from these fundamentalists.

Although, because Bush decided Iraqi oil mattered more than the victims of 9-11, that glimpse was very short-lived.

We need to consider this factor, at least.

While it might best be accomplished through diplomacy, the liberation of oppressed people is worth something,

But we all know that is not the essence of our continued struggle over there, if it were, we would never have been so easily diverted into the Iraq war.

Grayson is worth a campaign contribution, folks, it is really steaming his rivals to see his straight-talk have such remarkable influence on the $ bottom line they consider the real gauge of political success.

Here's the Act Blue page to do so, if you are so inclined and have the resources to help this rising star of Truth, Justice and the REAL American way.

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18665

Is it true Bush1 was approached by the poppy growers of Afghanistan, offering to go strictly legit and provide only pharmaceutical products to a legal market, if they were allowed to grow poppies, unmolested by "drug warrioirs" destroying their only viable cash crop??? (Well, ONE of their only viable cash crops.)

But his (Bush 1) connections with the inventors and makers of SYNTHETIC MORPHINE (Vicodin, Rush's drug of choice) made him refuse the offer, because they knew thye had a cheaper, yet even more addictive product to dump on a willing and unsuisppecting public?

Or is that just an urban legend from the 80's?

IF it IS tyrue, just one mroe reason to find out what was in that extensive drug-abuse study that was handed to Congress, that got shovelled into obscurity, the cover of which simply stated "organic v. synthetic drugs."

That organic v. synthetic meme is much more important than some hippy versus wingnut squabble, it reaches into so many industries and institutions and issues, from water pollution to cancer to the drugs we are prescribed.

We aren't liberating Afghani women by killing their children and husbands. Nor are we helping to liberate them by destroying their country.

It would be nice if the women of that country were treated with respect and equality before the law. Everyone agrees on that. But, if liberating those women were really an aim of the US we could simply offer to take all of them who wished to escape the opporession out of Afghanistan and to America. But our country doesn't want them and our government does not give two hoots whether or not the women of Afghanistan are free of their oppression.

That liberating the women stuff was nothing but a propaganda pitch to get people behind the war. There are very oppressed women all over the world. Shall we attack every nation where this is so? Of course not.

This thread is already reaching the stage of repetitiveness at which further discussion is likely to be provide little new information. My major points as to why I believe premature disengagement in Afghanistan would be dangerous, and is not being contemplated by the White House, are outlined above for anyone interested. The principal reason is that a combined Pakistan/Afghanistan effort is needed to contain Al Qaeda and maintain the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. An important secondary reason is a moral one - the welfare of the Afghan people. I won't repeat the evidence that despite ambivalence, they want us to stay as long as we can provide them security against Taliban oppression - see comments above for that.

Although I don't want to prolong the discussion itself, these discussions are important to alert non-TPM readers that this site, despite its admirable inclination toward a liberal perspective (in which I join), is not monolithic on Afghanistan and other major issues. The readers can review what each of us say and make their own judgments.

The Petraeus calculation refers only to regions of active counterinsurgency efforts, a much smaller area than the entire nation. He has made that point on a number of occasions.

Wendy, I will, when caffeine, my bleary brain, and my schedule conspire together to enable reflection.
But I appreciate greatly your point, re the invisibility of news that doesn't serve an agenda. And I am moved that you found my description of Columbia U.'s neighborhood to be worth writing about. The subject of education, what we are educating our children for, and for what- is something that preoccupies me greatly.
It seems that people talk about interest rates being an index of projected future value relative to present value- education is the same way. And also the question of 'brain drain,' our best students emigrating to India say, or China- I think that's in our future. What that prefigures for our hegemony is I think clear.

Ha! I don't doubt your sincerity- I am beginning to doubt your 'non-ideology.'

Consider this: Karzai's Government is accusing the ISI of being responsible for the Oct. 8 attack on the Indian Embassy:

http://www.littleabout.com/news/39200,isi-attack-indian-mission-kabul-tells-new-delhi.html

As the news item states:

"New Delhi, Oct. 12 - ANI: The Afghan authorities have reportedly told to the Indian Foreign

Secretary Nirupama Rao during her recent visit to Kabul that Pakistanis covert agency ISI was behind the October 8 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao rushed to Kabul this past week after the attack in which over 17 people were killed and 60 left injured. She visited the blast site and also met the Afghan leaders including Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Foreign Minister Spanta.

According to sources, Afghan investigators allegations about ISI's involvement in the attack on the Indian embassy, is based on preliminary examination of material recovered from the blast site.

Earlier, Afghan Ambassador to the United States Said Tayeb Jawad told the PBS news channel in an interview that ISI was behind the attack on Indian mission in Kabul."

This should not be a surprise. Pakistan views Afghanistan as vital to its security interests- as a counterweight to Indian threats on its other border.

They created the Taliban. They give safe haven to the Taliban and AQ. They see INDIA as their real threat, NOT the Taliban or AQ. They HATE our drone strikes. They HATE the US.

As long as this delusion of Pakistani 'cooperation' persists, the war is not only hopeless, but self-defeating. But illusions are difficult to shatter.

(Incidentally, here is something else to add to your list of things that 'destabilize Pakistan': our own aid to them!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-10-11-pakistan-aid_N.htm

"Special representative Richard Holbrooke's bid to rapidly shift U.S. aid from American contractors to local Pakistani organizations will "seriously compromise" the effort to stabilize Pakistan, a U.S. diplomat says in a "dissent channel" message to senior State Department officials...

In a July report for Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government— entitled "U.S. Aid to Pakistan — U.S. Taxpayers Have Funded Pakistani Corruption" — Azeem Ibrahim documented that U.S. officials have not been able to monitor aid to the tribal areas because of the danger in traveling there.

Transparency International, which monitors a non-profit group monitoring global corruption, calls Pakistan one of the world's most corrupt countries. In its most recent survey, 60%. of the Pakistani businesspersons who were questioned said they had been solicited for bribes by government officials.

Shifting aid from U.S. to local entities is a good thing, "but it has to be done at in the right sequence," said Paul O'Brien, Oxfam's director of aid effectiveness. If we see whole development programs come to an immediate halt, and people not going to school or the health clinic, that's a huge cost right now."

Pakistan's military and some government officials have complained about provisions in the Pakistan aid legislation placing conditions on the money. During the Bush administration, U.S. aid came with no strings attached, and later government reports were unable to account for how it was spent.

Among other strings, the bill conditions U.S. aid on whether Pakistan government maintains effective control over the military, including its budgets, the chain of command and top promotions.

Last week, Pakistan's military issued a brief written statement that said senior commanders, including the army chief, "expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security.""

I honestly don't understand what is so unclear about this. The Pakistanis had their Army HQ taken over yesterday, and yet they're more concerned about "American aid!" Sorry, Fred, I have a hard time believing you're as 'non-ideological' as you claim.

yes, that is what he is claiming.

None of the above news items contradicts the rationale for remaining engaged in Afghanistan, and I've already signified my agreement with many of the above points. I don't think it's quite accurate to say that the Pakistanis created the Taliban, which is an indigenous Afghan movement, but certain Pakistani elements helped it get off the ground and have supported it.

The latest news on Pakistani terrorism suggests that the Pakistani military and ISI are beginning to reassess their perception that there are "good militants, bad militants" and are beginning to see a greater need to suppress the Pakistan insurgents, period. That will help, but if the Al Qaeda elements in Pakistan get a free pass into Afghanistan, the job will be harder.

I believe Clinton is right that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is reasonably secure. I don't believe she is claiming it would remain equally secure if the Taliban claimed complete and uncontested control of Pakistan, thereby providing a secure sanctuary for any Al Qaeda elements who wishes to go back and forth across the border to promote terrorism and instability in Pakistan.

I would prefer evidence beyond the anecdotal, and we haven't even started a serious cost/benefit analysis of keeping non-Taliban sympathizing Aghanis secure, but thanks for responding.

I think we can probably Monday morning quarterback this forever if we want. My position at this moment (subject to change without notice)is that we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves given the circumstances at the time. As a country we were in shock and relied on our President to make the best choice for us. Silly us.

Now we are not in shock, and I am horrified that so many are ready to repeat the failures of the past. We have now lost more men and women in Irag and Afghanistan than we did on 9/11, plus gazillions of dollars, with little if anything to show for it.

Seems like a no brainer to me...we need to get outta there!

agree