I like the smashmouth farfisa/vox type organ riff with the cute "technical difficulties" graphic, it saves the "afterthought" post too.
And as a bonus, and actual explanation of the problem! something we rarely get on broadcast TV.
experience it all over again

In addition to the Juan Cole piece, Tom Hayden has an interesting article on the situation. Cole and Hayden agree that "Afghanistan is far more unwinnable even than Iraq" [Cole]. Cole's warning that "presidents can become captive of their own record and end up having to commit to things because they made strong representations about them to the public" is something that Dems. who are willing to give Obama a electoral pass on whatever it takes to beat McCain should begin to take seriously. We need a timetable to get out of Iraq AND Afghanistan.

Wonderment: I don't know if I buy that. It seems to me we accomplished a fair amount in Afghanistan before we got involved in Iraq. I'm not for staying in Arghanistan forever, but I also don't think (a) it's a guaranteed quagmire, and (b) it's a good idea to let the country be taken over by the Taliban again.

I'm not for staying in Arghanistan forever, but I also don't think (a) it's a guaranteed quagmire, and (b) it's a good idea to let the country be taken over by the Taliban again.

I'm not saying it's a guaranteed quagmire, nor am I a fan of the Taliban. A failed warlord/police state under US occupation whose major industry is heroin doesn't offer a lot of good options, especially not with these additional numbers:

When the United States installed the Hamid Karzai government, Afghanistan ranked 172nd out of 178 nations on the United Nation’s Human Development Index. It has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world, a life expectancy rate of 44-45 years, and the youngest population of any country. In 2005, 95 percent of Kabul’s residents were living without electrical power.-- Tom Hayden

Whenever we get into these situations that have no easy answers, our attention suddenly turns to the Pentagon. They always have answers. Unfortunately, it's always the same answer: More of everything. Cole and Hayden do not offer simplistic solutions to the problem, but the notion that calling in the calvary to shoot some more Indians will fix Afghanistan is a dangerous path. Obama hopefully has

Wonderment: Before I saw that you had replied, I added the following to my previous comment, but I've moved it here, instead. I must admit that mine is hardly an informed opinion, and both Cole and Hayden raise many warnings which sound worth considering. But still, I'm not convinced getting out of Afghanistan ASAP is the best policy. I do agree with pretty much all of your follow-up.

Quoting bjkeefe: Wonderment:

I don't know if I buy that. It seems to me we accomplished a fair amount in Afghanistan before we got involved in Iraq.

I'm not for staying in Arghanistan forever, but I also don't think (a) it's a guaranteed quagmire, and (b) it's a good idea to let the country be taken over by the Taliban again.

Right, I'm not an Obamniac, but you've got to give this guy a little more credit. I think he has taken a little more away from the last 7.? years than how to be pig-headed and ignore the lessons of history. I think he will try to do the smart things and not the popular things or the things he may have said he was going to do given the state of the union when he said them.
Which reminds me, why is changing one's mind (F.F.ing) a weakness? I see it as a quality that everyone should have in a world where conditions, priorities, and goals are constantly shifting.

Quoting handle: Which reminds me, why is changing one's mind (F.F.ing) a weakness? I see it as a quality that everyone should have in a world where conditions, priorities, and goals are constantly shifting.

Ah, the Kerry Defense. Didn't work. The rightwing noise machine made it an unqualified pejorative, and it has become the MSM narrative du jour for Obama, too. The only thing left, tactically, is to show that McCain is a bigger flip-flopper. If that starts to stick, the MSM will drop the meme like a hot potato, and we can get back to the real issues, like wondering how much of a secret Muslim Obama really is.

Regarding the "blogs suck?" section...

I don't even get this issue. It seems to me that saying "blogs suck" is the equivalent of saying "cars suck." Blogs are simply a feature of modern media, just as cars are a feature of transportation. Iglesias and Appel are on to something though. What really sucks is water. Tap water. Bottled water. Sweet water, salt water. Clean water, dirty water. Water sucks. Even spelling water sucks. I'm so sick of water. It really sucks.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ah, the Kerry Defense. Didn't work. The rightwing noise machine made it an unqualified pejorative, and it has become the MSM narrative du jour for Obama, too. The only thing left, tactically, is to show that McCain is a bigger flip-flopper. If that starts to stick, the MSM will drop the meme like a hot potato, and we can get back to the real issues, like wondering how much of a secret Muslim Obama really is.

Right again, it is a weakness, and I never said it wasn't, what I was really trying to say was that whatever I said, it wasn't what I really meant, in that particular context.

Quoting handle: Right again, it is a weakness, and I never said it wasn't, what I was really trying to say was that whatever I said, it wasn't what I really meant, in that particular context.

Yeah, I should have acknowledged the rhetorical nature of your question and the correctness of your underlying point. I blame Conn for elevating my political cynicism.

Quoting handle: Right again, it is a weakness, and I never said it wasn't, what I was really trying to say was that whatever I said, it wasn't what I really meant, in that particular context.

BTW what's our secret Muslim fist bump that we do over the internets?

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, I should have acknowledged the rhetorical nature of your question and the correctness of your underlying point. I blame Conn for elevating my political cynicism.

CONNNNN! YOU BASTARD! You killed our BJ! ideologically speaking....

Quoting handle: BTW what's our secret Muslim fist bump that we do over the internets?

The first thing to remember is that it's a terrorist fist jab.

Quoting bjkeefe: The first thing to remember is that it's a terrorist fist jab.

Riiiiiggghht, I've seen those jibjabs on the youtubes, homeslices...

Quoting bjkeefe: Ah, the Kerry Defense.....
....MSM narrative du jour

Nice deployment of "Kerry" and "du jour". Is this use of French unintentionally funny, or are you burying the humor way deep. I seem to remember a Dan Drezner diavlog where they thought that Obama should do a photo shoot with himself windsurfing. Brilliant! Heck, it needs to happen before the photoshoppers get to it.

Hmm. This Appell post reminds me of the reaction of scribes to the printing press: publishing the defense of their profession ON A PRINTING PRESS. The Hypocracy is thick enough to swim in.

I believe that was Soul Kitchen by the Doors. But yes, I liked that little interlude, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJgpXZbtFGU

Firstly, thanks for the Hayden link. The boards outdo the diavloggers! I repeat my (conservative) position, that the concept of a GWOT has only glorified a pack of anarchists.

In the 19th century anarchists mainly assassinated rulers; in the 1970s terrorists typically killed tens of people; and by the 1980s and 1990s hundreds died in bombings. On September 11th 2001 al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people. If it had chemical, biological or radiological weapons or, less likely, nuclear ones—all big “ifs”, admittedly—it would use them.

For global jihadists the reward is in paradise, so life is cheap. They do not seek realistic political gains, but dream of restoring the mythologised caliphate that was abolished by Ataturk in 1924. Al-Qaeda has woven many strands of grievance into a simple single narrative: Islam is under attack from all sides; America, the West, the Jews (along with puppet Arab leaders and treacherous Shias) are to blame; it is the duty of every Muslim to fight them; and Muslims who object are apostates. Thus is mass murder justified as a defence of Islam.

How to confront the menace? Al-Qaeda must be denied victory, denied sanctuary and denied the ability to organise attacks. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Western

I have no intention of insulting or demeaning the Afghani, as a people and some of what follow is of course a bit of a generalization. Afghanistan was always going to be a harder to move to a representative secular form of government than I raq. They are similar in population size but the level of sophistication of the populace in Afghanistan, as noted by Wondermont, is considerably below the level of the Iraqi society. A simple analogy might be comparing the difference between the amount of work and effort one has to do to get a bucket of water from a 20' well as compared to the work and effort of getting that bucket of water from 40' well. Not only must you dig twice as far to find the precious water, you must do twice the work to put it to use. In Iraq the populace was used to the centralization of power. Where as in Afghanistan, for decades if not centuries, has been a area of decentralized pockets of power even if under the appearance of centralized governance generally that central authority was titular

Appell is right when he says this: "Yglesias nevertheless offers a solution to this enormous, complex problem, a solution based purely on some political theory he read in a magazine somewhere last year and which has absolutely no naunced understanding of the complexity of the true situation on the group or its many years worth of layered complexity or what privatizing water supplies would mean for hundreds of thousands of southwestern ranchers or the million living there facing ever rising water bills." Consider the second of three 'concrete steps' proposed by Greenstone: "Second, property rights for water must be clarified." I hope that you don't have to live in the Western United States to realize that this is about the same as saying: "Second, Palestinian/Israeli conflict must end" As someone who owns water rights dating to the 1800s that have been involved in a adjudication process for almost 25 years, the way this need to 'be clarified' is stated matter-of-fact, without any suggested solutions, only saying that the cities' need is greater (especially coming from someone who I gather is halfway smart), perfectly illustrates Appell's point. and this: "Consider the case where

Quoting Baltimoron:
That's the long-term perspective: strengthen indigenous democracy by sharing expertise and outright money if necessary. Build, not destroy. In the short-term, al-Qaeda has already pointed out the strategy:

a couple years back, I read a pamphlet from Reuel Marc Gerecht of AEI called "The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy" (his only fame on BHTV was being referred to as a "natty dresser" by Bob) His core position was that the most anti-American and vocally anti-Western groups were the ones that were strengthening Arab democracies. Further, that America should almost welcome being pilloried, because it was these anti-American democracies that were going to ultimately reduce the terror threat.
This is a counterintuitive conclusion, and one which cuts sharply against the grain of America's approach from Pakistan to Palestine, but do you sort of agree with this?

Lastly, regarding Wonderment's hate of water, I partially agree.

And don't get me started on trees. Or stars. Stars totally suck.

Excerpt from "Memo to Obama, McCain"

In Afghanistan, the United States declared “victory” over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce “victory”? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides?

The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right.

Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a “war on terror.”

Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...an-border.html Pisc, this is a piece written by Brigadier FB Ali, Pakistan Army, Ret.

Yes, I have read Gerecht, although I can't seem to find archives on him. I did find this, though:

Obama has repeatedly said that he would now deploy two additional brigades (roughly 8,000 men) to Afghanistan--a commendable "surge" of troops that is surely needed in the country, and about double the reinforcements so far sent by the Pentagon. But is this really a big part of answering the senator's constant complaint that the Bush administration took its "eye off" al Qaeda? A few thousand more troops in Afghanistan's southern provinces would diminish al Qaeda in Pakistan how? Does he mean that instead of stacking up a couple of hundred CIA case officers in the Green Zone in Baghdad, we should stack up these same men and women in Afghanistan, inside guarded compounds where their English-only abilities get further honed? (If Obama were to attack the Bush administration for its lack of zeal in the reformation of the CIA, especially the clandestine service, where the number of operatives who have any real knowledge of Afghanistan's languages and culture remains--according to case officers currently serving--scandalously small, he would be on firm ground.)

Increasing troop levels in Afghanistan

Continues from Part 1 From Nicolas Schmidle in the Wash Times:

The reality is that Pakistan's new coalition government must engage in the same precarious balancing act that President Pervez Musharraf faced before February elections gave rise to this new government. These new powerbrokers provoked much consternation in recent months when they engaged in unprecedented negotiations with the Taliban and militants in border regions. Those talks appear to have broken down. So, for the time being, under mounting international pressure, we see a more muscular approach from a government that originally seemed likely to underperform rooting out terrorists.

But the balancing act remains the same: Any Pakistani government must reckon with the fact that its countrymen prefer negotiation over military action against al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist militants. In a recent study by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation, more than half of Pakistanis said the United States was to blame for violence inside the country today, as compared to only 8 percent blaming al Qaeda. This is a perception gap of enormous proportions, and a similarly epic public-diplomacy failure.

Mr. Haqqani's perceptive words regarding

Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?

A fitting question!

Quoting Chef: Nice deployment of "Kerry" and "du jour". Is this use of French unintentionally funny ...

Heh. Blame it on the subconscious. Also funny -- your line about your new favorite G-rated computer game. If you haven't already figured it out, I'm delighted to see you on these boards.

In my further attempts to secure a Lifetime Achievement Award for Grand High Exalted Mystic Nitpicker ...

Quoting piscivorous: I have no intention of insulting or demeaning the Afghani ...

Well, you just did. The afghani is the name for their currency. You've just done the equivalent of calling Americans dollars. The preferred collective name for citizens of Afghanistan is Afghans.

But the balancing act remains the same: Any Pakistani government must reckon with the fact that its countrymen prefer negotiation over military action against al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist militants. In a recent study by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation, more than half of Pakistanis said the United States was to blame for violence inside the country today, as compared to only 8 percent blaming al Qaeda. This is a perception gap of enormous proportions, and a similarly epic public-diplomacy failure.

Thanks much for your comments and extra info, by the way. Discouraging news, though. But this is precisely what I'm talking about. Although it's good information to know, it's polls like this that seem to set up the incentive for American diplomats and decision makers to "fix the number". In the aviation field, pilots call this "chasing the needle", where you keep overcorrecting and never find the right flight path. Gerecht, who is probably persona non grata around here, says we need to quit chasing those public diplomacy targets in these authoritarian regimes, because we can never balance the ledger with the things we do to

Quoting Chef: Gerecht, who is probably persona non grata around here ...

Since I noticed that you've mentioned this name at least twice now, I Googled it. Among other things, I came across an interesting find: The Counterterrorist Myth: A former CIA operative explains why the terrorist Usama bin Ladin has little to fear from American intelligence. The spelling gives a hint about the kicker: This appeared in the July/August 2001 Atlantic Monthly. Pretty prescient piece. Even before reading this article, I wouldn't have assigned Gerecht PNG status just because he's a neocon. If he can bring thoughtfulness instead of jingosim, then by all means, let's have him on. Maybe you'd like to make a fuller case for him in this thread?

Quoting bjkeefe:
Even before reading this article, I wouldn't have assigned Gerecht PNG status just because he's a neocon. If he can bring thoughtfulness instead of jingosim, then by all means, let's have him on.

Maybe you'd like to make a fuller case for him in this thread?

He's thoughtful indeed, but I'd rather not make the case for him. He's really sort of a "the conditions are dire, the decisions are grim, we all might die, but let's talk alternatives". At some point, you just want to cue the Michael Bay movie music. It's not that I think he's wrong per se, but if you read his stuff, there seems a lot of brinksmanship there. This leads him to extremes on a whole range of issues: bombing Iran, torture in the GWOT, invading Iraq, removing privacy protections for domestic spying, and even targetted assassination.
I basically get the sense that he'd be the ideal guy running the show during a zombie invasion. But, then again, according to Bob he's a "natty dresser." and BH has few enough of those.