Right. I guess we should give him a pardon and a pension, then. Maybe Bush can take care of that on January 19.

lol I can't wait 4-8 years to see who Obama pardons.

“Will Obama make the same mistake as the current president in not setting achievable goals for the mission?”

Why limit the question to Afghanistan?

Right. I guess we should give him a pardon and a pension, then. Maybe Bush can take care of that on January 19.

Is there a sociologist or anthropologist in the house?

Sure. David Kilcullen who, coincidentally, is the godson of a dear friend of mine. Just google him. You'll find all sorts of interesting stuff.

Chasing Obama is a fools errand for two reasons. First, if successful it will create a martyr, for he will not be captured alive, and if captured, he will be executed by our legal system creating even worse results. Second, it will never be accomplished without “collateral damage”, a process that will create mini martyrs through out the country.

Aerial bombardment missions must be severely curtailed.

Somebody has to climb the mountain and shout out to the gathered crowd: “We are dealing with a tribal society, and each tribe is different from the other, tied together only by religion, customs, and distant family members.”

There is not only the “macro” regional approach:

The good news, though, is the talk of a “regional approach.” While it’s just silly to say that the Bush administration is still treating Pakistan and Afghanistan as separate issues, they certainly seemed to do that far too deep into this process. Certainly, Obama will be much more likely to bring Iran and Syria into the mix. Whether he can ultimately be successful is another question entirely. But it’s certainly worth trying.

Sorry about this James, it is essential to be tried.

But equally as important is the micro approach: recognition of the tribal nature of this region. As we bend over the corpus of the Bush Afghanistan policy, will Obama and Petaeus cry out the critical question: Is there a sociologist or anthropologist in the house? And will they even consider the questions Dave Schuler is asking?

1. What are we trying to achieve in Afghanistan?
2. What in dollar and manpower terms will be required to achieve those goals?
3. Over what timeframe will this be required?
4. Is there political support to pay this price over this period of time to achieve these goals?

We can't just assume that they're asking these questions and to my eyes at this point it certainly looks as though all we're seeing on this subject is posturing.

Steve