Cole writes: "Obama will have to decide whether he wants to risk undermining the elected government and perhaps increasing the power of the military by continuing to insist loudly and publicly on unilateral U.S. attacks on Pakistani territory."

Is Obama "continuing to insist loudly and publicly on unilateral U.S. attacks"? That's not what I hear and see. He's explained his earlier statement when asked by the press, but he's not made this a core concept of his Afghanistan policy. On this point, Cole is exaggerating, though his larger point about the difficulties of "winning" in Afghanistan is well taken.

Is Mr. Cole's prescription limited to a roundabout admonition not to inflame local passions by our presence and simply hope for stability? That we step to one side and merely encourage the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistani to become capable of preserving their own security, as well as the world's?

The Taleban is resurgent, al-Qaeda has reconstituted and found haven in Waziristan, and Pakistan's new government is pursuing much the same "hands-off" policies in the uncontrolled regions as did Musharif.

Simply put, the Pakistani and Afghani governments appear weak and growing weaker, just as al-Qaeda and its regional ally, the Taleban, grow stronger and bolder, and are increasing cross-border raids as well as acts of terror against the local populations in the areas which "harbor" them. We needn't bring up the history of A.Q. Khan, or make citations to al-Qaeda's many statements on the subject to understand that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is al-Qaeda's most coveted prize.

A delicate situation. But one that appears to require our undivided attention and the sort of commitment - including military - that we haven't undertaken over the past 7 years.

I'm not sure what to take away from this meandering critique other than that I'm sorry to have wasted my time reading it. It's undercut by the typical and ubiquitous "to be sures" and completely lacking the sort of counter-prescription that naturally supplements any well-written, fully-conceived piece of criticism. In short, if Obama "is saying the wrong things about Afghanistan", then what are "the right things"? Somehow, this goes unaddressed by Mr. Cole.

Nobody is going to be elected president of the US after saying, "If we find out exactly where Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, and the Pakistanis won't help us... meh, we'll just leave him be, that's cool."

Obama's comment about "actionable intelligence" — which is actually some pretty sly diplomatic talking, there, if you think about it — was in direct response to a blatant attempt at terror-baiting by the press. Every time Obama is asked any sort of similar question, he's going to answer in the same way. Guaranteed. It won't be news then and it's not news now (except maybe in the, "Are Democrats allowed to talk like this?" department).

His real message in Afghanistan is that the kabuki theater of US support for Karzai is over. That should be the takeaway.

Support for Karzai may take a different form, it may increase, or it may vanish — that remains to be seen. Obama isn't saying because, frankly, what could he possibly say that would matter? By the time he's president the entire power dynamic in Afghanistan could have changed.

Or make that will have changed. Again.

And yeah, a lot of eyebrows are going to be raised in Pakistan. The Americans have been tolerating the status quo ante there for 6 years, and a lot of people have benefited — just not Afghanistan as a whole, nor the dynamics of regional power and stability which a free-falling Afghanistan threatens.

But there is nothing shocking or naive about the basic message. In fact quite the contrary — it's sane and smart, characteristically centrist without entirely lacking in imagination.

Only someone with an ax to grind could even attempt to pretend otherwise. For that reason it's surprising to see Juan Cole so worked up about Obama's position, which is essentially to speak boldly and promise nothing. That's exactly as it should be.

And as for the hard nugget of Cole's criticism — that Obama is talking about more boots on the ground along the Pakistani border — yes, there are risks there and discretion might be the better part of valor, but simply preserving the deadly fictions of the Bush regime is not.

One difference, and a pretty major one I'd say, between US intervention in Iraq (and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan for that matter) and what Obama has been proposing is that right now the war in Afghanistan is widely supported by the international community. It's a NATO operation if I'm not mistaken.

I know Canadians are generally onside with the war, but have been frustrated by what appears to be a piecemeal approach to planning.

I appreciate Mr Cole's insights into the region, and can totally see why he has reservations (after all he's the expert and I'm the pissant wasting time at work ;) but I think he's a bit off here. I think NATO would LOVE to have the US completely on board again in Afghanistan, and I think it would be beneficial for everybody.

Perhaps because I'm not American, I never really saw Obama's focus on Afghanistan as him trying to look tough, but rather as highlighting his belief in multi-lateralism (which of course makes him diametrically opposed to the Repubs under Bush and McCain)

would you prefer that he said "if we know where Osama bin Laden is and the Pakistani government is unwilling to do anything about it- well we will just ask them again-pretty please!"

I think it is fine to put countries on notice. However, if we are going to strike than I think it is really important that we do it on very good intelligence and be very certain that we hit the right target.

As a professor one would also think that you would care to mention that until the Russians meddled in Afghanistan in the early 70's it had been for several decades prior to that a relatively tranquil place. I was there as a child and although have few memories my father always had fond memories and regarded the Afghans as kind and gentle people.