The Afghan Imperative

By DAVID BROOKS September 24

Excerpt:

"These are the realistic choices for America’s Afghanistan policy — all out or all in, surrender the place to the Taliban or do armed nation-building. And we might as well acknowledge that it’s not an easy call. The costs and rewards are tightly balanced. But in the end, President Obama was right: “You don’t muddle through the central front on terror. ... You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.”

Full Article

Obama isn't considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, because he relishes his "Dear Leader" role, and wants to conquer Waziristan, and then the world. He's considering more troops because Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban presents a clear and present danger to the civilized world.

Afghanistan presents a horrendous problem. The world has no choice but to directly address it. The alternative is terror and mass-murder all over the globe.

Let's not address the real reason the U.S. is bogged in Afghanistan: The Bush administration screwed up and didn't address it when it could have. Oh so sadly, we're beyond that phase now.

I hate war. I hate large-scale U.S. military presence anywhere. But it was obvious before the U.S. even went into Afghanistan, that any realistic resolution of Afghani chaos would involve a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for decades.

If you want to be all righteously anti-war pissed off about it, get pissed off at all the other "civilized" nations, who are avoiding their responsibilities as world citizens, to help the U.S. solve the huge problem of terrorist states.

Want to see murder, mayhem, and human suffering on a global scale? Pull out of Afghanistan, and give it back to the Islamist nutjobs.