Of course, we cannot go into the area unilaterally, now can we? Or, will our new leader do it anyway? Will he order our forces into Pakistan's tribal areas in strength to find OBL (I am guessing that we have had Special Forces in some numbers roaming around in there for a long time--without much success regarding OBL, but apparently huge successes in pointing Predators to the right houses for subchieftans.).

I wonder whether we have done adequate recce into Iran for signs of OBL.

I am afraid that our days of subjugation (liberation?), reconstruction and democratization of backward nations are coming to a whimpering close. We are running out of money. Perhaps a few bucks of aid would be in order, rather than billions for troops and all the rest.
Posted by mannning | February 2, 2009 | 05:16 pm | Permalink

I'd heard Afghanistan described as the Graveyard of Empires, and I'm starting to worry we'll be the third.

Just how many troops per square mile would be needed to achieve Gates' first objective in Afghanistan?

According to counterinsurgency doctrine, to hold Afghanistan you'd need about 600,000 troops, I believe I read. At an annual cost somewhere around the cost of the Stimulus Package*. 'Course, you'd only hold them until you left. I just deleted the rest of this post because it's obvious Afghanistan is pointless. I don't need to recite why.

*(someone joked that we could get republicans to pay for some of our roads, schools, hospitals, and bridges, if we could only convince them to invade America.)

Just how many other places in the world are we going to try to deny use of Muslim land to the AQ: all of North Africa and the Middle East? This fails on the number of troops required and the cost, I believe.

I am afraid that our days of subjugation (liberation?), reconstruction and democratization of backward nations are coming to a whimpering close. We are running out of money. Perhaps a few bucks of aid would be in order, rather than billions for troops and all the rest.