It's really a shame that this column doesn't appear at the Huffington Post, too. Well, it's really too bad that this column doesn't appear in every major newspaper across the US and beyond - especially now, when the debate is really heating up!

Anyway, I'm hoping you'll consider a column - in the not too distant future - taking a closer look at the what the options are in Afghanistan/Pakistan or a critique on what the Obama-Biden administration finally announce.

Great column...as per usual!

The media and media consumers had better learn about the distinctions between al-Qaeda and the Taliban...and between different elements of the Taliban, for that matter, if they want to make persuasive arguments about what military and political/diplomatic strategy will be needed to stabilize and secure Afghanistan in a sustainable way. I have found that the failure to make these distinctions is the Achilles heel of arguments for or against any particular strategy.

The reporting on the internal debate in the White House and the public debate outside of it as to how best to proceed on the Afghanistan/Pakistan file has been predictable and par for the course. And, that goes most especially for cable news and the punditocracy. Collectively, they couldn’t accurately and intelligently report on a war - or a debate over its course - if their very lives depended on it. That is just to be expected. It’s no wonder why so many people are so ill-informed. In any event, it seems as though the Obama-Biden foreign policy and national security team is not letting the sad state of affairs within the fourth estate throw them off track. Though, I must admit, I’m thinking eight months is an awfully long time to settle on the right policy for Afghanistan/Pakistan. Call me impatient. Of course, we have to understand that this situation is a rapidly evolving one and, in particular, consider the huge impact that the recent national Afghan election and its aftermath is having on military and political/diplomatic strategy - though, we might have seen this one coming.

As for the fact that Obama has already surged troops in Afghanistan...frankly, I don’t see this as being much of an argument, regardless of where you stand in the debate. I don’t find either argument persuasive and therefore I would never make it part of my case, for or against more troops. I just think that the number of troops that we need in Afghanistan today is so intimately related to what strategy is finally decided upon as to render the earlier Obama surge irrelevant to today’s debate.

While the media have failed to state the obvious...that military commanders always need more troops...I have to question the basic fact that Generals always ask for more troops. If that were the case in Iraq during the latter half of 2003, then we may have averted much of the disaster that intervention has become - from the loss of law and order and looting seen in the months following the invasion to the fragile and reversible state of affairs we see there now with little, if any, progress toward national political reconciliation.

It had become obvious to most of us that Iraq needed more troops very, very early on in this conflict. It took three more years and a vicious sectarian civil war to prod them into asking for more troops. But, by then it had become too late for more troops. Let’s recall that while the surge may have taken place at about the time that the security situation improved somewhat in Iraq, it is a stretch to say that the troop surge was responsible for improved security.

...continued.... :)

Apparently, Obama has received a pay-off for losing Chicago's Olympic bid...

Does ANYONE think that Obama has deserved the Nobel Peace Prize??

That prize became irrelevant when they awarded it to Al Gore. Now, giving it to Obama (who was nominated just ELEVEN DAYS into his administration) seems to seal the complete and utter irrelevance of the Prize.

This will simply add another political dimension to the Afghanistan issue. An issue already replete with political dimensions. Unfortunately, the military necessities will even more so, fall by the wayside.

If Obama had ANY brains whatsoever, he would refuse the prize..

It's not deserved and it's an unwelcome and potentially dangerous distraction.

Michale.....

I am officially boycotting the Fox News web site..

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/08/space-gals?test=faces

ANY web site that lists the TOP TEN Alien "Hotties" and DOESN'T include Seven Of Nine (Or 36 Of D as she is affectionately known.. :D) is not worthy of my time...

I'd like to publicly thank Michale for providing a word I was searching my brain for while writing this article. I knew he had a military background, and also that he is never far from the keyboard, so I sent him an email and he provided the correct term. So, even though he can be a pest here, he can also be useful at times.

:-) [just kidding, M…]

:D Glad to help out. Since I have been working more at home now, I am available for all your linguistic and thesaurasitical needs.. :D

OK, enough with the prelims... Let's light this puppy...

{Michale cracks his knuckles and begins his marathon...}

Overall, this commentary raises some good points and is replete with really good info. However, there are one or two glaring errors that must be pointed out.

The most glaring of which is the idea that this insurgency is different than the Iraq insurgency..

Now, CW is correct when he says that the REASONS behind the insurgency are different. This is true. The cabals and tribes that creates the conflict in Afghanistan are vastly different than than Sectarian violence of Iraq.

However, I am constrained to point out that the differences in the cause have absolutely NO BEARING on best way to combat the insurgency.

An insurgency is an insurgency is an insurgency.

WHY the insurgents do what they do is irrelevant. The Afghanistan insurgents use the same methods to achieve the same goals as those of the Iraqi insurgents.

So, from a strictly combat ops perspective, what worked in Iraq WILL work in Afghanistan.

Now, of course, once one breaks the back of the insurgents, THEN and ONLY then, will the causes of the insurgency come into play. At THAT point, yes, we will need to tailor our ..ahem.. "logistical" :D troops to fit the specifics of the Afghani people and their way of doing things.

But, we are no where NEAR being even CLOSE to that point. We must first break the insurgency and to do that, we need troops.

Obama ran on a platform of listening to the commanders in the field. He castigated Bush for, initially, not listening to the generals and their calls for more troops.

But now (like in many other things) Obama seems intent on making the EXACT same errors that Bush has made.

Obama made big fanfare of his Afghanistan Plan back in March. He sung the praises of McChrystal to high heaven, saying THIS was the man to get the job done.

But now that it's become a political problem, all of the sudden, McChrystal is in the doghouse and is incompetent..

This is why Politics should never, ever, EVER be given a seat at a war council. Anytime one let's politics have a say in operations, nothing but disaster happens.

Biden et al.....

(As an aside to Liz, I am not picking on Biden specifically. He is only one of many who have adopted this attitude. I just can't recall who else is making statements such as these and I am too lazy to research it)

....are fond of saying that McChrystal's assessment is just one of many factors being considered.

This is complete and utter BULLSHIT. It's a political statement, pure and simple.

The ONLY assessment that should be at the first and foremost TOP of the consideration list is the ground commander's assessment. Sure, one can consider other issues and the like. But if those secondary and tertiary issues conflict with the primary assessment, they should be discarded immediately.

History is replete with CnCs who ignored that one basic tenet of warfare and they failed. Some, as in the case of Bush, were able to realize this and change course.

Moving on to Karzai. As I mentioned above, Obama unveiled his grand Afghanistan Plan back in March. Many today say that the faulty elections have required that a NEW plan be put into place.

Here again we see the incompetence of Obama, the Commander In Chief, rearing it's ugly head.

Shouldn't Obama's Masterful March Plan have included the possibility of disputed/faulty elections? When has there EVER been a third world hick country that DIDN'T have "disputed" elections? Such a possibility should have been incorporated into Obama's March plan which would NOT require so much debate BS right now.

No, the truth of the matter is, Obama was surprised that his own party would dispute his Afghanistan plan. He IS "The One" after all, right?? And THAT, not the Afghani elections is what prompted the debate.

This "debate" has solely been brought about by the political football here at home. And it plays right into the hands of the enemy. ANY delay of getting boots into Theater will make the Taliban and Al Qaeda stronger and more bold.

The other glaring error in this commentary is the idea that Al Qaeda and The Taliban are two separate problems. While they definitely are two distinct groups with their own motivations and such, they ARE part and parcel to the same problem.

All things being equal, there is absolutely NO WAY we could ignore the Taliban and go after Al Qaeda. The two groups are ideologically and logistically linked. One combat op undertaken by one group is designed, in part, to aide and abet the other. There is absolutely NO WAY that we can make peace with one group in an effort to combat the other.

Yes, I know. It worked in Iraq.. However, as the Left delights in pointing out again and again, ad nasuem, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until the US was there. So, AQ in Iraq was a new phenomenon. AQ didn't have the long history of mutual support that AQ and The Taliban have. A historical link that cannot be broken, no matter how much money we throw their way..

We have about as much chance of making peace with the Taliban to fight Al Qaeda as we have of making peace with Al Qaeda to fight the Taliban. And anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the region, the history and military matters in general. No offense meant.

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK The Enterprise Incident

In CW's conclusion, he is dead on ballz accurate. Afghanistan IS a complex situation and careful thought must be put into addressing the situation. My point is that Obama *SHOULD* have done that "careful thought" BEFORE he put his plan into action. It's obvious he did not.

"One doesn't change horses in mid-stream"
-Abraham Lincoln, 1864

On the other hand, it's a well-known military fact that no plan, no matter how well thought out, survives contact with the enemy. I believe it was Patton that said that. Or it might have been MacArthur.

However, neither of them said anything about a well thought-out plan surviving contact with an ally!!

Regardless, if Obama et al wants to fiddle-fart (an old industry term I just made up.. :D) around then he should do so AFTER he has enough boots in Theater to keep our troops safer.. I have heard a couple of people from the Cut Troops clique say, "The only thing that more troops on the ground will do is buy us time."

Well, Obama et al said the exact same thing about the nearly trillion dollar porkulus package that was passed. "It's designed to buy us time." with the economy.

And, I have to admit that overall, it **APPEARS** to be working.

So, why not buy us time in Afghanistan? Surely if "buying time" is worth it for the economy it is infinitely more "worth it" for our combat troops, no??

McChrystal's assessment should be accepted and followed to the letter. Morale is plummeting in Afghanistan while politicians frack around with their lives..

Afghanistan is burning. I think we have had enough fiddling...

Michale.....

I have finally answered last week's FTP comment thread, even before I attempt writing this week's!

So, if you joined in the epic thread last week, check it out and see what I had to say.

-CW

It's even easier!

http://fridaytalkingpoints.com

:-)

Osborne -

Hadn't heard that #3 before... interesting...

Everyone -

Toles has a funny, if crass, look at the politics of the situation that is worth a look.

[Hmmm.. that link may have problems. Look for the cartoon which ran on 10/8/09...]

-CW

1) Obama seems to have recognized that Kharzai is going to win the recount.

2) The UN recount method treats all cheaters equally, which means it's not going to help the challengers. There probably won't even be a runoff.

3) Al Qaeda has already made moves to expand in Somalia due to Pakistani pressure on their hosts.

I just knew I wasn't the only one who had that duck on my mind, ever since everyone started referring to Afghanistan/Pakistan with that cringe-worthy shorthand construct. Not surprisingly, I never liked the shortened version.

Now, before I dig into today's great column, I just wanted to sing the praises of CHRIS WEIGANT'S FRIDAY TALKING POINTS!

Having long become a fan for life of FTP, I must highly recommend a weekly dose of this unparalleled column to anyone who craves intelligent and essential political analysis that will always leave a lasting smile on your face and who still hold onto hope that the Democrats will someday learn how to play the power game.

If you have not yet experienced the enlightenment of FRIDAY TALKING POINTS, then you have quite a lot of must-read catching up to do. You can find them all right here...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/category/friday-talking-points/

Enjoy!

...Michale, you have the floor...take it away!

Two things here, for the CW.com commentariat:

(1) I still have not read the 50+ comment thread from a few days ago, where Afghanistan came up. I will do so now, since I didn't want to prejudice what I was going to write about today (cough, cough... sheer laziness... cough). OK, well, that's my story anyway, and I'm sticking to it.

(2) I'd like to publicly thank Michale for providing a word I was searching my brain for while writing this article. I knew he had a military background, and also that he is never far from the keyboard, so I sent him an email and he provided the correct term. So, even though he can be a pest here, he can also be useful at times.

:-) [just kidding, M...]

The word, if you're curious, was "logistics," and the closest I could get was "provisioning" which I just knew wasn't right....

Anyway, public thanks to Michale.

OK, I now officially declare this comment thread open. Have at it!

-CW