I feel this paints the policy with too broad a brush.

The formula I see is: invasion and occupation with too few troops=power vacuum--->insurgency--->increasing strain on local population as military is seen to crack down indiscriminately---->further insurgency.

There are two factors that might warrant consideration: is the conflict worth it in the first place, and how competent and credible is the management at the helm?

Iraq was a) demonstrably not worth it. Had it been a clear and present danger, invasion with a larger number of troops and competent management with a thorough plan might have avoided disasters such as the looting that led to the beginnings of the insurgency and the disbanding of the army, perhaps the largest single error early on.

Invading Afghanistan was arguably worth it. Howard Zinn, who I respect tremendously, argues it was not. But a much stronger case can be made for Afghanistan than for Iraq. The CIA, not the Rumsfeld pentagon, managed the first stages of the war, and led a pretty successful routing of the taliban. Only Bush's lack of attention to shepherding the broken country back to order dragged the whole thing into the downward spiral.

Can it now be exculpated? it's certainly more complicated than it once was. But if you agree it's worth it, the next question becomes, who do you trust at the helm?

Since everyone here seems to be in a hurry to get out from Afghanistan citing ancient history, one pertinent question is left unanswered: What happens whwn you run out of Afghanistan? Leave the country to the talibs and their paymasters the Pakis? Let jehadis take over the country again? It is a great idea to be against stupid and unnecessary wars like Iraq, but running away from Afghanistan will be suicidal and an unmitigated disaster. Anyone given a thougth about that?

his various "intemperate" remarks may have put him in a Maliki-type hotseat ... The Taliban is said to be resurgent. They have taken over whole villages.

If another 10,000 troops enter Afghanistan, they might help nation-build or they might just be deployed to fight the Taliban (with our unfortunately too common heavy handed use of air power when our troops get into trouble ... and the civilian collateral damage which has made US, rather than NATO, unpopular, and which reflects badly on KARZAI).

The Taliban is sorta like the mafia ... they get things done... sorta like the Al-Sadr and the other Iraqi militias. The only good way to get rid of them is to make them irrelvant.

Every orphaned child, every sibling, every parent, every spouse of every killed militia member will be your enemy. It has to be secured and turned over to local control.

"Going after Bin Laden" is in a whole other ballpark entirely ... except that we risk upsetting a whole lotta folks if we "get more aggressive" ... if years of satellite and drone suveillance (as well as number strikes) have not definitively killed the man, he is isolated and largely incommunicado. How do you define success? His head on a pike? Another Guantanamo show trial? Confirmed DNA analysis of a million little pieces?

It is all too easy for Afghanistan to devolve into another Iraq. There are some successes in nation building. There are elections next year. Hunting Bin laden or the taliban should not be allowed to jeopardize those gains or leap-frog in priority to appeal to the American public in an election year. The Afghan people suffered enough.

Invading Iraq was a distastrous blunder. The invasion was backed up by lies aboout Hussein's ties to al qaeda, who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Al qaeda and their Taliban allies are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should have been dealt with 7 years ago, "good targets" or not.

Getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, but so is crippling al qaeda.

Obama has talked about sending more troops to Afghanistan, but, as the article points out, he has also been critical of the political situation in the country. It seems a little early to be criticizing a strategy that will be fleshed out later based on the latest intelligence and military advice. Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan right now. If a "surge" can help protect them, then who is Juan Cole to suggest that doing so would be improper.

We outsourced the Afghan War and bin Laden and pals are stronger than ever. We can't make that mistake again. We can't make the Russian mistake either, but a forceful, well-planned, comprehensive attack on the al qaeda support network is JUST what we need.

As for Obama's remarks about Pakistan, perhaps they should be slightly retooled for future use, but they are not off the mark. If Bin Laden is in downtown London and the British won't get him, we should do it ourselves. Obama's comments about going into Pakistan uninvited were predicated on having reliable, accurate information about high value al qaeda targets in that country. The Pakistan governments do need to know that if they won't help us get these targets, we WILL do it ourselves. Hopefully we will never have to, but putting the cards on the table is the right thing to do.

I think that Mr. Cole is selling Obama short in assuming that in taking a tough stance Obama will proceed recklessly, as Bush did in every aspect of his "War on Terror". I have seen nothing to indicate that President Obama would not proceed carefully and thoughtfully.

I'm not sure your assertions are true. Are the only two premissible paths imperialism and isolationism?

When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, and apparently conversely the only alternative to the hammer starts to look like nothing at all.

I think we on the left have to be open to all viewpoints about this. What I've heard from Iraq is a situation where we are still viewed largely as occupiers-a situation that's been misrepresented by almost all the media (with the shining exception of Salon). Was that the inevitible result of our going in in the first place? Yes. We already had no credibility with the Iraqi people. But the Bush administration undoubtedly made the situation worse.

In Afghanistan, is any US military presence making the situation worse? I would argue no. From the accounts I've read the Taliban is taking hold because citizens are beginning to realize the Karzai government is not strong enough to protect them. I believe unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is going to reach the tipping point soon, but it can still be turned back. What we need is not unilateral withdrawl from the area, but rather credibility-to reinforce the notion that the Taliban, which by many accounts seems almost universally diplored and to whom citizens seem to turn only in desparation, is not the best option for them.

I would argue that while the airstrikes on the Pakistan border have done damage to our credibility it is in the end the ham-handed Bush approach to the region that has done the most damage. Claiming that a more adept foreign policy government couldn't pull some of these long-ignored levers (use the Musharaf government's desire for legitimacy to pressure them to crack down in the border areas, and let the Pakistanis-not the US-be seen making the military actions) for a different result is a little like claiming that because you failed to remove your appendix with a butter knife the entire premise of apendectomies shouuld be abandoned.

Like any surgical procedure, it carries risks, so it better be worth it. And you better have a competent surgeon holding the scalpel.

But this is different than Iraq-let's view these situations with a little nuance. This is not dead-end political posturing arguing for "victory" long after you've given away any credibility. It's taking your last chance to salvage some.