I think the military support of the Karzai Administration in Afghanistan is different from Iraq.

First, there is a threat to the United States (and to our allies India and Pakistan as well). We have been attacked from the region (several times, if you include the Cole, and our African embassies), and could well assume that further attacks would be planned and attempted if we left certain extremists to themselves.

Second, unlike Iraq, there is considerable desire in Afghanistan for orderly government free of extremists. Speaking to soldiers who have served in both theatres, they have universally expressed to me a desire to continue the fight in Afghanistan, where the locals support them and are willing to fight alongside U.S. troops, and Iraq, where the hatred was palpable and Iraqi troops unreliable, to put it mildly.

Third, I believe the Obama Administration is deeply desirous to resolve the situation and get our troops out of a combat role in Afghanistan. They do not regard this a an employment program for their Military Industrial friends. While I am sure this notion is unpopular on this forum, I still believe it.

I also do not believe the Obama Administration will continue an Afghanistan occupation if it becomes obvious that there is no hope of resolving the conflict. These decisions may well be made in the next couple of months, if the Karzai Administration insists it has a victory strong enough to avoid a runoff, even in the face of widespread cheating. We could see a change happening very quickly in that case.

Obama has had 7 months in Afghanistan. I would like to give him at least a year, and listen to what he says we can accomplish, and what obstacles we face before I rush to judgement.

It's not like Obama let the situation fester for 7 years, which turned it into a much more difficult problem.

Questions of consensuality are meaningless.

Any parent who has sex with their child, even if that child somehow makes a concerted effort at seduction, has done a terrible thing.

Terrible.

Sometimes, otherwise good people do terrible things because they are incapacitated by substance abuse, I suppose. Madness can generate awful acts.

But a parent who has a sexual relationship with their child is a monster.

I don't know why anyone would even want to debate this.

Next up, the essay condemning Obama for eschewing LBJ-style tactics for pressuring Democrats to vote for a Public Option on healthcare.

"Oh, for the old days, when presidents were tough and knew how to twist arms and use backroom deals to get the agreements the country needed!"

If fellating Spector get his vote on Employee Free Choice and a moves a Senate bill with a Public Option past the filibuster, then, fellate away, by all means. I'm still sending money to Sestak, but I understand that bills are passed by current Senators, not potential replacements.

One thing (maybe the only thing) I like about Republicants is that they don't have as many whining armchair quarterbacks like Sirota on their side.

This constant state of vapours is getting really tiresome.

Hey, instead of feeling dumped on, I think you should be stoked that Krugman is reading your column! Dude, you've hit the big time!

Of course it is Reagan's fault, overall. "Greed is good". Wealth is virtue. Wealth trickles down from the Rich to the Poor. Regulation is bad for business. Government is the problem.

That's all thanks to Reagan, no doubt. It is certainly the foundation for the present disaster we are hoping to climb out of.

However, since Reagan set the stage, we've seen that sensible management by the Chief Executive can still move America forward. We know it can be done. But, as a country, we decided it was more important to stick our noses into the private affairs of our citizens, and to engage in wars of domestic culture and international unilateralism. This is Brooks' point, and it isn't necessarily a contradiction of yours.

You're talking about different things, is all. Just nice to see Brooks paying attention to the old values of conservatism that were jettisoned in favor of jingoism and shallow service of immediate wealth.

And you're getting noticed! What's not to like?

Just very good. I enjoyed reading it, and feel enlightened.

We seldom appreciate what the leaders on our side are trying to do for us.

"my only question remains this: Why is Iran going for nuclear plants when they are sitting on so much oil?"

Pretty much the whole answer is in the title. Using their oil or gas to generate electricity is a very expensive way to keep the lights on.

Nuclear is a very cost-effective way to generate a lot of power for a large urban area like Tehran. The oil saved can be exported at $66/barrel. That works out to a lot of money in foreign trade for Iran.

Nobody (with a brain) would say you are afraid to criticize the Obama Administration.

So it is nice to see a clear-eyed endorsement of that new "diplomacy" method they're rolling out.

Obama played cool, revealed some dicey moves by Iran regarding the Qom facility, and let the rest of the world do the yelling.

Then he approached Iran and said "Hey, how about we deal with this like reasonable countries?"

Bingo! Progress. Not perfection or and absolute win, but a framework for working together like adults.

Iran and the U.S. actually have many common interests. If we start working with each other without yelling, much mutual benefit and future peacefulness can be achieved.

Thanks for noticing.