Sorry!

But regarding Afghanistan, the more important broadcast was on Zakaria's show, “Global Public Square” (often accompanied by the acronym “GPS” as another cheap CNN gimmick). Zakaria's own comments, as usual, were whiffs; but his two guests, Haass and Biddle, were discussing Afghanistan and it was a good exchange. The essential question is to recognize that the real problem in the area is Pakistan, not Afghanistan, and that affects what we should or may wish to do, if anything still, in Afghanistan. There is a limit to what we can expect in Pakistan, and if we leave Afghanistan, we risk its loss again to the Taliban or to similar terrorism and terrorism-support threats later. To direct our efforts to Afghanistan or in Pakistan, or how much toward each, is the question, not merely do we continue what we're doing now, boost the troops and try to do more in Afghanistan (to do what?), or do we leave Afghanistan more quickly than we had been anticipating before.

I agree, we all hope that Obama will make the right decisions on Afghanistan.

I would only hesitate to thunderously applaud the following comment,

“Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The “surge,” as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.”

For two reasons:

1. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and furthermore it is that involvement that took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistam

2. I don't know if I would call the present situation in Iraq “snatching victory from the jaws of defeat,” even with 400,000+plus troops still there, the violence, corruption continues. Eventually our troops will have to come home–or go to Afghanistan–. What then in Iraq?

DG:

I appreciate your candor to admit that you are not an expert (just as I am not).

But then the question begs, what is your basis for claiming that our efforts in Afghanistan may not have been any more successful if we had not focused all our attention and resources (men, money and materials) on Iraq. And, furthermore, why is such an important strategic decision and event “beside the point”?

“By saying we should not listen to McCain is he also saying we should not listen to McChrystal? If Obama ultimately agrees with McChrystal is he saying we should not support Obama?” I don't know if Rich (?) is really saying that we should not listen to the generals presently in charge. I believe he is talking about the neocons who made such a mess of Iraq and now want to call the shots in Afghanistan.

” As others have pointed out Afghanistan may not be winnable, and that might have been as true in 2003 as it is now.” I realize that many are saying so. I haven't made up my little non-expert mind on that yet. I hope that we can find an intelligent strategy to wind that war down successfully, destroy as many terrorists capabilities as possible–and any exisiting threat to the U.S.—and extricate ourselves without spilling too much American blood. I believe you are saying the same later on

Thanks

By saying we should not listen to McCain is he also saying we should not listen to McChrystal? If Obama ultimately agrees with McChrystal is he saying we should not support Obama?

My inclination, and I'm no expert either, is that we should look for a way out of Afghanistan. That opinion is based on the situation at hand, and McCain et al have nothing to do with it.

The guy scares me and I am VERY glade he is not President.