our policy in afghanistan, both original and present (whatever that actually is, because it isn't at all clear from the administration) is the policy of the brits and soviets, both losers in that quagmire of a country.

apparently, we're doomed to read santayana over and over and over again.

putting troops in piecemeal is a sure way to:

1. incrementally increase our losses., and

2. ultimately lose the conflict.

unless we're willing to put a million troops on the ground, wage "total war" (thereby eliminating the enemy's ability to prosecute the war), and act like victors, we will lose. this is not even an issue for discussion, it is just harsh fact.

if obama intends to merely continue the previous administration's program, albeit with slightly more troops, we'll be having this same discussion come 2010 and 2012 and 2016, etc.

Here does not seem the proper thread to argue the whole Afghanistan issue. Let me just repeat that my main point is not exactly the same as Get Afghanistan Right. There is a range of opinion in the group, which, as I say, overlaps NSN's to some extent. My point is that the sending of troops now, just 10 days into the review of Afghanistan policy, seems to me to presage what one large part of that policy will actually consist of when the policy review presents its conclusions: a larger military presence spread over several more years.

So far, the U.S. has been there more than seven years and our generals are talking five or more years additionally. Aside from the Indian Wars of the 19th Century, which were piecemeal, that will make the Afghanistan war our longest conflict. I have yet to hear what the goals are, how we shall measure the attaining of those goals, and how much of those goals must be attained before troops can start moving the other direction from the one they are now going.

I think a Marshall Plan approach might be more effective.

this was instituted after germany and its allies were totally defeated in war. you didn't have guerilla groups marauding in the countryside.

again, absent a firm plan (and there doesn't seem to be one at this point), incremental troop increases are meaningless.

of the two conflicts, afghanistan was actually the legitimate one; the taliban dominated government, by refusing to secure and remand osama bin laden (and his merry band in tights) to the US, to answer for their crimes, committed an act of war against us. we had every legitimate right, under international law, to strike back.

had we kept it to afghanistan, focussed all our resources and energy there, we would today be celebrating a re-birth in that pitiful country. instead, bush decided to show the world his codpiece, and squandered it all attacking a country that had caused us no harm.

so far, i've not read, heard or seen anything from the obama administration specifying exactly what their intentions are in afghanistan, other than another "surge".

[T]here was broad progressive consensus that getting into a fight over Afghanistan would not help Obama's chances against McCain. So progressives who opposed a troop escalation in Afghanistan kept mostly silent.

But not only is it rude and condescending, the burden of proof must always, by necessity, fall on those who favor the war.  If someone wants to say "look, you just haven't shown me the necessity," that's their right.