I'm not sure who could play the part of Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond in this parody of colonial intent in Afghanistan/Pakistan but the British and the Russians have had their fingers (and other parts) burnt once too often. Juan Cole is right and Rudyard Kipling, colonialist to the core, wrote verse about the hopelessness of trying to subdue the Afghan tribes: "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut out what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains an' go to your Gawd like a soldier". As for breaching the border with Pakistan, that would be total lunacy and the Brits won't go along with that if for no other reason that there is a large Pakistani community in Britain, the younger generation born and bred in the UK and some of them already radicalised. The British people were against the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning and there were Cabinet resignations because of PM Tony Blair's support for it. Blair was popular in the US but his own electorate turned completely against him.

The British have been pulling out of Iraq since last year but it's been done with a lack of fanfare. A Canadian soldier was killed in Afghanistan the other day, the British are still there but, from what I've read, I very much doubt that what is expected to be Obama's rallying-call when he comes to Europe will be met with an enthusiastic response. The white poppy is an important part of the Afghan economy and no ideological concerns will interfere with that, especially as the drug processed from it has eager customers in the USA, Europe and Asia.

I can't believe the utter spectacle of Obama's campaign.

It's an awful remake of "The Candidate" - only with bigger spin.

www (dot) rottentomatoes.com/m/candidate/

None of Obama's statements should be seen in a national security context, and they are only in part meant for pubic consumption. Obama is talking to the vested interests in the military--who don't want Iraq, but do want a war--and signaling to the neocons that any policy shift away from war with Iran (IRAN) will be balanced by an intensification in Afghanistan.

It's yet another dumb idea from the Obama campaign. Yes, the US has a continuing legitimate interest in getting Osama. The notion that the Taliban had much to do with 911, though, is a bit stretched. And threatening Pakistan? WTF?

Long before talking about troop shifts, Obama should be laying out a coherent framework for regional policy. He hasn't.

Can we PLEASE get our Democrat elected before we start to tear him apart?

Hmmmm?

Remember that the alternative is McCain?

My God, I was wondering how long it would take before Obama would start being ripped apart by his own side -- but it has already started.

Has it occurred to any of you that one important reasons the US public prefers Republican presidents is so it won't have to deal with all the complaining and bitching and moaning from the RIGHT -- and the LEFT -- that they have to deal with when they elect a Democrat?

At least, when they elect a Republican, they only have to deal with yowling from the Left.

My God, we are pathetic.

Isn't that the better question?

JFK, who Obama is trying to channel on this trip, led us into Vietnam. Shouldn't someone have questioned JFK on his foreign policy, even if Nixon was worse (or maybe just sweatier)?

We've been told to shut up for eight long years of ruin. Now the Democrats want us to shut up with any questions for Obama.

Just take your AT&T tote bag and find your place at INVESCO (TM) stadium and shut up until they tell us to yell. And then yell real loud!

So what's the story here? That he's an idiot? That he doesn't know what he's doing? That he's in WAY OVER HIS HEAD? That we're all SCREWED if this MORON gets in the White House? Why is that news? Everyone should ALREADY KNOW THIS. Don't ya think? He's a BULLSH*T ARTIST with a silver toungue and SH*T for brains. He has NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS that he, or his Apostles, can point to. Unless you look at the RAT INFESTED PROJECTS in Chicago that he engineered. I would suggest that the "followers" of Obama introduce themselves to "The Flim Flam Man", "The Music Man" or any other CON MAN in our history. Perhaps the "Simpsons" episode about the Monorail will work. We are looking at the Political equivilance of a Ponzi Scheme. And everyone knows how THAT turned out. Well, maybe the Private Schooled ones.

Invading Afghanistan to stop Bin Laden is actually the same, mistaken policy as invading Iraq, if only on a smaller scale. We have no business occupying that country. The UN has no business occupying that country.

Obama is pledging to incrase the fighting with the Pashtun ethnics, who form the base of the Taliban. He agrees with the permanent warrior, McCain, on this. However, this will only bolster support for Bin Laden among the Pashtun and the Pakistani Right. I would not be bothered by Bin Laden being killed, even if we have to drop into Pakistan to do it. It should have been done a long time ago. But invading a whole country, playing nation-builder, is not the same thing at all.

Even if the Taliban supported Bin Laden. If we overthrew every country who supported a group of terrorists, we'd have to take out many other governments, including our own. State terrorism or individual terrorism? I don't think I have a preference.

After this many years and your still chasing your tail, just go home and call it a tie. We'd be better off just folding up our tents, leaving and letting Iraqfghanistan just figure it out. They've been lopping off each other's heads for 500 years and they're not going to stop now.

"Naderaid" is good for you; take your medicine!

Candidates Gore, Kerry and Obama are of the same cloth. They have no political courage. All represent big corporate control of our Congress and undue influence in our Executive Branch (militarism in foreign policy, regulatory agencies that don't regulate). In recent years, Al Gore has gotten environmental religion but he still supports nuclear power.

Granted, had Gore been elected in 2000 we probably would not have mired ourselves in Iraq. His response to 9/11 would very likely have been a militaristic one rather than one based on using international police methods and foreign governments' assistance as our response. His defeat was his own doing, because he, like WJC, continued to steer the Democratic Party towards the "center", meaning unmitigated trade policies and deregulation. Nader ran for the same reasons then as now: to expose the allegiance of the Democratic Party to its corporate funders. He tried to influence Gore, as he did Kerry four years later, but they would not listen to him and attempted to exclude him from the political process. When that happens, one does as Jefferson recommended: become a candidate and use the political process yourself.

John Kerry was also a very weak candidate who, after four years of Bush with visible failure of the Iraq "democratization" effort and mounting casualties and debt, could not win the election of 2004. He was a political weakling who would have, if elected, not have had the courage to oppose our military-industrial cabal and take us out of Iraq. Nader saw this and tried again to influence him but was ignored. He was excluded from the debates and ignored by the spineless, disunited Left. Nader again took Jefferson's advice and ran.

The blaming of Ralph Nader by those who prefer to support poor Democratic candidate choices is an escape from facing reality: the failures of the Democratic Party to offer voters candidates with reform platforms. Sen Obama is the third of this ilk. His talk about change is empty rhetoric. When it comes down to a vote, he votes with the rest of the pack.