I don't see it in the either/or dichotomy that you present here. Just, for example, based on what we know now about Obama's policies, how would exiting Afghanistan influence the crucially vital problem of our dependence on mideast oil. I mean, if this problem was simply one of money, sure it would free up extra billions to throw at the problem, perhaps even to create the illusion of millions of 'green jobs' that we were promised (a complete crock, just ask the Spanish). Rather, these are also problems of will: for example, Obama and co. have no will to drill for more oil (but we'll give Brazil money to do so), they have no will to invest one of the few realistic alternatives, nuclear power; on the other side, there is no will to take steps to reduce the demand equation. Which brings up another aspect to these problems, and that is that there may not be good solutions, no matter how much money we are willing to throw at them. Which leads directly to Iran.

I don't really know what Obama could be doing differently or better in regards to Iran. Iran has stated, quite plainly, that if we attack their nuclear sites they will take out the Saudi oil fields, which means $500/barrel oil (and no wonder the Russians love this!); you think we could reasonably stand this? So, Iran is right to laugh at any threat of force, because they know we can't stand this; regardless of Afghanistan. Obama's response seems to this seems very rational: try and build an international coalition against Iran. The fact that it's pretty much failed doesn't mean he was wrong for trying; maybe it was just the best possible thrust in a host of very tough problems, whether those are Iran, Afghanistan, or our dependence on oil.

But what would you have proposed in re the tens of thousands of our troops that are already in Afghanistan? You don't say, which makes your opinions on the importance of the conflict well-thought-out but cheap. We need to know what alternative you support and your view of its costs before we can begin to take your view seriously.

If you are for withdrawal at the earliest time possible, which your stated view of the conflict would seem to dictate, then you need to give an account of how that would play out and how our interests would be served by it. Additionally, although you wouldn't need to do this to prove the case that that should be the decision, you should acknowledge what this requires of the president (while those like me would have to acknowledge it would be his duty if I agreed with your assessment). Namely, you would require him to accept as his most visible national security action of his presidency the willing acceptance and management of our defeat in Afghanistan, in direct contravention of everything he has ever said he would do regarding the conflict and our commitment to it. Domestic politics must not dictate decions of war, but neither must they be ignored in discussions of the topic by citizens. You should at least acknowledge the size of the political bombshell you would require of the president if you hold him to the action that your view of the conflict would seem to require.

Two Points:

1. Bob Pape is probably right about the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Gist: Perceived Occupation breeds terrorism). We need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, and fight from afar. Use the Afghan model (Special Forces, Air Power, and Indigenous Fighters) to take out our enemies.

2. These are the regions of American Interest in order of most important to least important:

1. The Homeland/W. Hemisphere
2. Europe
3. Northeast Asia (Plus India and Pakistan)
4. Persian Gulf
5. Other

Afghanistan falls into the "Other" category. In other words, it simply isn't important in a strategic sense. Sure, an unstable Afghanistan might wreak havoc on Pakistan, but the potential for the loss of any of their nukes is very low.

This is the most cogent and well-rounded analysis of "the speech" I have seen. I will have to share the optimism that you cling to in your final paragraph. The alternatives are too hard to bear. President Obama has essentially doubled down on a bad hand that was left him by the previous player. The only redeeming virtue was that finally someone has said it - our ability to change the world has limits - in both human and financial resources. I have already heard several proponents of an open-ended commitment argue that we should be willing to pay any price to achieve security, but not to restore economic vitality for our own people. They may that find the people of this country, who have to pay the bills for these far-flung military occupations, will tire of the cost well before 'victory' (whatever that means) is achieved.

Your analysis of the Iranian threat is hands down the most intelligent one I have seen. Unfortunately, our Iraq mis-adventure has made dealing with Iran more difficult, and contributed to a real possibility of regional conflict, a rising tide of Muslim extremism and destabilization of governments across the Middle East and North Africa. Iran could have been a valuable ally, but we have made it into an opponent.

Despite the often acclaimed success of the surge, Iraq remains a very unstable state, with Sunni versus Shiite and Arab versus Kurd factionalism that could lead to a civil conflict as the US departs. At best, Iraq will end up a colony for its Shiite neighbor.

It is very likely that after trillions of dollars and thousands of US military deaths and tens of thousands of disabling injuries, our security may not be any greater. In a world in which we are less and less respected, the greatest threat to our country arises from the false notion of American exceptionalism and arrogance in the way we treat others.

David:
Congratulations on a cogent and thoughtful analysis of the current "situation" in Afghanistan---and elsewhere. The speech illustrates Obama's maddening desire always to compromise,split the difference and pacify as many players as possible. There is little doubt (in my mind) that the Afghan adventure is destined to be fruitless. It is not possible to "win" a war against a people who 1) will not leave as we must eventually and 2) have made a profession of tribal/irregular war. McChrystal is certainly right in one thing: you can't win by killing insurgents in Afghanistan since the more that you kill the more that you encourage to join up. The solution: recognize the limits of American power and the need to focus them on true national interests---which Afghanistan is not. All this carrying on about using it as a base is preposterous since many other venues are available and in some ways superior, such as Somalia, Yemen and apartments in Hamburg. A truly courageous speech/approach would be to announce a near term withdrawal and focus our efforts on true national interests such as reducing energy dependence, rebuilding the domestic infrastructure, restoring economic vitality and supporting the limited number of nations who generally share our world view and values. I'm confident that a year after we have left Afghanistan (whenever that may be) we will be wondering why we were there and what we got for our investment.

Not only immerses luckily in Lin Daiyu's peach blossom is unable to extricate oneself, the winding peaks and paths, after leaving has left the big classic tall boots sorrow, what the front surface comes is inconceivable greatly complete, lets us look that the peach blossom enters the poem the highest boundary, is take the peach blossom as external “the lucky chance”, points out frankly the poet covertly to the world, the accumulation already long comprehension. Said with the zen words that the classic short peach blossom is “the color”, namely the world representation, the peach blossom opens falls, means that has with taking turn which does not have, the so-called peach blossom poem, considers “engages in introspection the poem by the color”, but achieves “engages in introspection the boundary peach blossom poem by the color”, more actually stems from hand of the poet, but stems from grasps principles hand of the imperial sacrifices monk.

It is a height of sheer absurdity for US government to claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic extremists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistan’s current democratic as well as previous military governments are sheltering and protecting the leaders of that very Taliban Afghan insurgency in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan.

General McChrystal clearly laid out in his assessment to President Obama that:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

Pakistan is sheltering and protecting these Afghan insurgent groups to reestablish its writ in Afghanistan as and when US leaves.

As Times of London reported on 9/28/09, Pakistani government started to relocate Afghan Taliban’s QST leaders to Karachi to protect them from impending US drone attacks on Quetta after the submittal of General McChrystal’s assessment.

With an ally like Pakistan, US has NO chance of winning in Afghanistan no matter how much military efforts or aid US pours there.

Thanks for the link to the old Folgers commercial. It was the most useful thing in your piece.

Ah fu Khan to the United States into the quagmire of a war!

China is the world's shoe-producing countries at low prices, you may also consider purchasing Naqu Mai from us, we are all world famous brand shoes, but also a high imitation shoes, for example,nike shoes,adidas shoes,jordan shoes,lv bag,sunglass,jeans,hat,and so on.welcome you!

Adidas Shoes | Adidas | Discount Adidas Shoes | Adidas Kids |

there is a world-class technical talent footwear, abundant funds, we will provide our clients with the cheapest and best quality shoes. Air Force 1
Nike Air Max 1
Nike Air Max 97
Air Jordan 1
Air Jordan 11
Air Max 95