We have sold our country for the adventures of the elite..our infrastructure is sold and mortgaged. What more could a terrorist want ..that our government hasn't already done..
we've lost. We are owned and have lost our freedoms for WHAT?

I would love to have those on the left explain how that is good and right while invading Iraq wasn't

Possibly because the people who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11 are there and not in Iraq.

But then I forgot for a moment. Justice for the 9/11 victims is not part of the Bush/McCain agenda...

The question of victory in Iraq came up a few days ago. I suggested at the time this was a regional concern, not one of an individual country, and that a victory in Iraq *alone* was useless.

I now submit the same answer for Afghanistan,a nd for the same reason.

That said, I'm with YAJ, here.

Steve

ANYWAY, US foreign policy is a revolving door..no matter who gets in, it'll be what ever it is..on and on..I would rather see Obama win than the flapping penguin, McCain and hearing that hateful racist mouth for the next four years.

I'm not voting for either..I will vote for a third party this year..I'm sick of the same ole tired fat cats who don't listen to the People.

We should not be wasting our time, blood, and treasure trying to do so.

Provide aid to Afghanistan, keep some troops there for training & to provide some logistical support for occasional special-forces ops, and devote our attention to intel gathering that can support such ops -- that, I think, is the best we can hope to do in Afghanistan.

N.b. that I don't think such ops must cease at the Pakistani border. If Pakistan can't control the area, then we should feel reasonably free to make necessary incursions, provided they're relatively rare and sufficiently deniable to save face for Pakistan's gov't.

I'm not on the Left and I supported the war in Iraq going in, but it seems to me that "Because Al Qaeda are actually primarily based out of Pakistan and it's their key recruiting ground, whereas Iraq... er... wasn't" would be a response that at the very least ticks a lot of boxes in terms of intellectual consistency.

Dave, have you read Rory Stewart's recent output on Afghanistan? I'm not sure how right he is, but he does genuinely have very extensive experience on the ground and first rate contacts in country, probably more than 99 per cent of the military people and one hundred per cent of the punditry, so it's worth at least taking a shufti.

On the troops issue, my instinct is that if we're going to continue our current strategy (if it can be dignified as such), then extra troops would be very helpful. The question is whether that's the right approach.

As the the number of troops needed, I haven't seen anything that says you have to eat the whole elephant at once. A 'clear and hold' effort that started in the major cities and moved out would not require all 400K at the same time.

At the same time, the logistical issues you raised are very real. Further, if nothing else, Vietnam has shown us the problem of allowing political boundary sanctuaries. So Iran and Pakistan are going to eventually be dealt with.

The question I have for Obama is exactly how he would deal with the Pakistan problem. What can Obama do that Bush hasn't or McCain couldn't besides smile prettier when he meets with Pakistan leadership? And if the answer is to conduct war in/against Pakistan (overtly or covertly), I would love to have those on the left explain how that is good and right while invading Iraq wasn't.