frankly, it would be cheaper to just buy the poppy crop from the afghan farmers, then to spend the money to try and eradicate it. my suspicion is, they don't particularly care who buys it, as long as it gets bought.

if the president or congress can give me no legitimate, fact based reason, for not legalizing pot, they have no business keeping it illegal.

Second, we're already well through the screwing-up phase of our operation. At first, the Western nations underestimated the insurgency. They tried to centralize power in Kabul. They tried to fight a hodgepodge, multilateral war.

Those and other errors have been exposed, and coalition forces are learning. When you interview impressive leaders here, like Brig. Gen. John Nicholson of Regional Command South, Col. John Agoglia of the Counterinsurgency Training Center and Chris Alexander of the U.N., you see how relentless they are at criticizing their own operations. Thanks to people like that, the coalition will stumble toward success, having tried the alternatives.

Third, we've got our priorities right. Armies love killing bad guys. Aid agencies love building schools. But the most important part of any aid effort is governance and law and order. It's reforming the police, improving the courts, training local civil servants and building prisons.

In Afghanistan, every Western agency is finally focused on this issue, from a Canadian reconstruction camp in Kandahar to the top U.S. general, David McKiernan.

Brooks is pleased with the Obama plan:

After the trauma in Iraq, it would have been easy for the U.S. to withdraw into exhaustion and realism. Instead, President Obama is doubling down on the very principles that some dismiss as neocon fantasy: the idea that this nation has the capacity to use military and civilian power to promote democracy, nurture civil society and rebuild failed states.

Foreign policy experts can promote one doctrine or another, but this energetic and ambitious response -- amid economic crisis and war weariness -- says something profound about America's DNA.

But...according to the Washington Post:

Obama plans to announce a "simple, clear, concise goal -- to disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan," said the official, one of three authorized to anonymously discuss the strategy. The president will describe his plan in a White House speech to a group of selected military, diplomatic and development officials and nongovernmental aid groups.

The officials declined to put dollar figures on aspects of the strategy other than the cost of U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan. Initial funding requests for hundreds of additional U.S. civilian officials to be sent there, as well as increased economic and development assistance to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, will come in a 2009 supplemental appropriation that the administration has not yet outlined.

So, whatever the administration says will be spent in Afghanistan does not include efforts in Pakistan.

Obama has always said he would ramp up, so this isn't a surprise. Personally, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm tired of being the world's policeman, and I'm skeptical that we can accomplish something on the other side of the globe that the Russians couldn't manage in their own backyard. On the other hand, I'm not certain we can leave. We'll burn a ton of goodwill from allies all around the world if we do this. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Lots of people actually supported us with money and troops in that fight. Walking away from it now will have consequences.

I wonder how the neo-lib/Kos kids class can square this action.   Oh I forogt.  It's okay.  It's Obama.

It's a trifecta!

He may think of it as just one war, the Af-Pak War, but by broadening the war and specifically saying he will go after Al Qaeda to wipe them out he's adding a Pakistan War-- since that's where he thinks Al Quaeda is now.

Nixon thought he could just expand US military might by air and secretly by ground into Cambodia and he would help the US and South Vietnam to win the war in Vietnam. But this destabilization of Cambodia lead to Cambodia becaming an abattoir, filled with killing fields.

I have no solid prediction of what US intervention into Pakistan will lead to, but I doubt it will be good.

Is this a continuation of Bush/Cheney's "creative destruction"? That by messing around with Pakistan's stability there may be changes beneficial to, oh, Big Oil and the US thirst for oil? Better empire? Being a great war president?

Can't be, right? Bcz Obama will fight global warming and work to limit greenhouse gasses? Right?

I feel very, very sad today.

According to close observers, the key debate in the White House is whether the United States and NATO should wage a counterinsurgency campaign--securing the Afghan population, helping to provide basic services, and thus strengthening support for the government--or whether we should devote most of our resources to going after al-Qaida terrorists directly. Obviously, any plan will wind up doing at least a bit of both; the debate is over priorities and emphasis.

More here

It is still unclear from the WaPo article which of the two plans Obama will deploy.

The advocates for a more purely counterterrorist (or CT) approach--led forcefully by Vice President Joe Biden--point out that, after all, we're in Afghanistan only because of al-Qaida and therefore we should focus on that threat and leave the rest to the Afghans. Yes, we should offer them aid and assistance, but neither their economic development nor the survival of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime should be what our troops are fighting and dying for.

The counterinsurgency (or COIN) advocates argue that only through their approach can al-Qaida and the Taliban be defeated. Hunting and killing terrorists has its place, but in the long run it only gives the enemy the initiative, lets them melt away into the landscape, and does little to stop new recruits from taking their place. The best way to keep al-Qaida at bay is to dry up its support by earning the trust of the civilian population, building roads, creating jobs, and striking power-sharing deals with tribal elders.

similar to pres. bush, there doesn't seem to be a well thought out, coherent plan of action for either afghanistan or iraq. just throwing more troops, material and supplies in doesn't constitute a plan.

Hmm.  I get it.  If I send more troops and more money we will get out quicker.  OK.  The math doesnt add up.