zeroworker, that's the wrong answer. The correct answer is "probably not, but, in theory, possibly.

No, I gave you the correct answer the first time. Obama will do no such thing (stop the war juggernaut) unless forced to do so by the electorate, and the electorate isn't making a peep.

If he's hell bent on war, he needs to get some new political consultants.

Again, no. The incentives and pressures of the office are such that war is his optimal choice. Not for the country, but for him as a politician.

If Obama wants to escalate this war, he needs to stop all this health care non-sense and get on the WAR TV.And why climate change legislation? Put this money into the war! Why a stimulus? What a waste! War is stimulating and sucks up the unemployed.

This makes no sense at all. First off, it is possible to have multiple priorities. And as far as I can tell, Afghanistan is not causing Obama's other priorities to suffer. He got his stimulus bill earlier this year, and it looks like a health care bill will pass as well.

And where do you get this notion that he needs to beat the war drums to escalate in Afghanistan? He's considering that very thing as we speak! His general has made that exact request, and many in the political class are urging him to follow that course. What does he need to hit the airwaves for? He can just say that's what we'll do, and it will be done.

I submit that he's not whippin' up the war because he doesn't want to. Hey, he's not just any Nobel Laureatte, he's OUR Nobel Laureate.

Well, I don't see it. He's already escalated once. I don't have a crystal ball - I'll be pleasantly surprised if he does not escalate again. But he's not going to stop the war in any case. The only two options under consideration are status quo, and escalation. How is that an agenda for peace?

The sooner any remaining optimism is wrung from your body, the better.

One thing I'm sure of, the war mongers would like everyone to believe that war is the only option.

For American policy makers, it _IS_ the only option. Advocate for peace, and you lose your job. A few freaks with a strong moral sense may do so, but then they are drummed out of their positions and things go back to normal.

Two years ago, if you had asked whether a black man, born to a muslim father, named Barrack Hussien Obama could be elected as president of the United States I would have said "impossible." This is because of centuries of raciscm, blind hatred for "the other", and and the name, Sadam Hussien. What I once thought to be impossile, became reality.

Electing a black President in America is far more likely than an American President calling the troops home and mothballing the American military.

2.) A shift from counterinsugency to counter terrorism is also being considered. Seems that this could involve de-escaltion, as war against less than 100 Al-Qaeda fighters would not requires less than war against both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The latter strategy could entail cutting some deals with some Taliban and some tribes. I don't think Obama will go this route, but I do think it's within the realm of possibilities.

No way.

We are heavily invested in the Karzai government, especially after the recent elections. We will not adandon Karzai, at least not right now.

Cutting deals with the Taliban, while perhaps a rational strategy in the abstract, won't fly. Most Americans see the Taliban as equivalent to al Qaeda. Politically it is an impossibility.

Besides, what kind of deal would the Taliban want? They want us out. And our troops will not stay to stabilize a Taliban regime.

reducing the number of enemies is a step in the right direction. Do you suppose they could reduce that number from 100 down to zero? I think I could do it with a squirt gun and a few bags of rice.

I'm highly skeptical of your 100 al Qaeda fighters figure. If it's that low, why bother fighting at all? Just pull out.

Secondly, I have a feeling a mechanic who goes to Afghanistan with a squirt gun and a few bags of rice would soon have a bullet in his head and the local Taliban leaders would enjoy a few hearty meals over the following week.

That attitude is probably the biggest problem with our intervention. We think we can step in and "fix" things for the local folks, as if they are helpless children who need our TLC. In fact, we are the ignorant ones, with no understanding of local customs, culture, traditions and social arrangements.

I submit we should wait until our help is requested before getting involved, and that anything less is bound to end up making matters worse.

Yes, your right. War is the only option.

Wow - that was easy.

However, something tells me I have yet to beat the optimism out of you.

How silly of me to think otherwise.

I don't think you're silly - just unrealistic.

I think it would be great if we got out of Afghanistan. But Obama won't even get us out of Iraq! D's and R's aren't much different to begin with, but the gap between them becomes vanishingly small in the case of foreign policy.

I don't see why Glenn deserves kudos for writing down what is just plain common sense.

The fact that Glenn chose this topic as the subject for one of his blog posts just illustrates how far off the rails our democracy has gone, and how much trouble it is in.

President worship is just another piece of evidence that we are on the path towards authoritarian socialism.