'Fraid I have to agree. All wars are not the same, and all adminstrations are not the same.

That is, we'll leave you alone to your own particular idiosyncrasies once you do what we want and we can prosper. There isn't a democracy in China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and countless other places. American "bigwigs" are going to have their hands full for the next thousand years in spreading their mission to a largely ungrateful world. Mind you, there won't be any world left if the crazy idea of ignoring Pakistan's sovereignty is supported. The Taliban have their stronghold in the mountain ranges west of Islamabad, capital of Pakistan. Months ago, Obama was reported as saying that he's in favour of "hot pusuit" by American forces, even if it meant crossing into Pakistan. Maybe that was "poorly phrased" or he "misspoke" but Canada would need to watch out. Of course, Europe is closer to Afghanistan/Pakistan so that if the nuclear button is pushed it won't really affect the USA all that badly. Let's get our priorities straight, by all means.

I've done McCain the courtesy of listening to his policy proposals and trying to understand his viewpoints. I suppose it's too much to expect for you to extend the same courtesy to Obama.

You remind me a little of the old cop in the cop shows who's not real sharp but has a hot temper. The one who assumes the guy in the interrogation is guilty before interrogating him. I dunno-maybe Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Are we smart enough to give him the benefit of the doubt and base our opinions on the evidence rather than jumping to conclusions?

Let's interrogate our suspect. We may turn out to be right, and bet the farm we'll have a far stronger case in court.

Women in Afghanistan have had only marginal improvements since Karzi was elected. If you can think back, the Soviets were teaching girls too, and employing many women. They were far more radical on this than Karzi's government, which is in a bloc with local fundamentalist warlords. And they intervened, not to 'nation build' according to their lights, but to protect an ally government. Sound familiar? The Soviet government that we helped overthrow was progressive compared to the Taliban and the Islamic fundamentalists with guns.

Now we are supposed to be bringing the light of civilization again, after out sterling first attempt. Do you think dropping bombs on civilians will make them love us? And prove how 'progressive' we are? There is no reason to be in Afghanistan if you are really after Bin Laden. Of course, if you are not ...

For those who asked who is footing the bill for Obama's trip, his campaign is paying for his European leg and taxpayers are paying for his Middle East leg. Either way, it is a good deal for Obama.

Further, Obama came out in a press conference in Israel stating that a nuclear Iran is a "grave threat" and he "would take no options off the table." That is basically what Hillary said and was lambasted for it.

To me, no matter who becomes president, we will never get out of the Middle East.

We (the USA) haven't been doing too much nation building in Afghanistan ... we were originally too busy chasing Bin Laden, as you may recall and we were so heavy-handed that NATO didn't really want to work with us (kinda like Spain in Najaf, but I digress).

The three objectives are in conflict -- Catch 22.

I support nationbuilding in Afghanistan, although as has been amply demonstrated in many places, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 5 years, we (the USA) aren't very good at it ...

As in Iraq, it may be that WE (the USA) are the wrong people for the job... but having obtained the "keys" we seem intent on having the run of the joint.

People keep treating these issues as old-fashioned military problems with big ham-fisted military solutions. Wrong! Unless you desire to occupy Afghanistan indefinitely and prop up endless puppet governments, foreign troops have no business being there. What would YOUR reaction be to Muslim armies based in our nation, breaking into homes without warning, dropping bombs on our civilians without any hindrance? There is never going to be peace in Afghanistan between the Afghans and foreign soldiers, never has been. The Russian veterans are laughing their asses off at our stupidity. So are the Chinese and the Iranians.

The problem all along is approaching al-Qaida as a conventional military problem and not as a crime problem. Al-Qaida does not control countries despite what paranoid propaganda says. They are a rogue element that should be fought police-style. Invading nations and busting apart countries does not defeat al-Qaida, it only creates more enemies who suddenly find common interest in opposing the US. What I find most telling in this is comparing the American reaction to 9-11 with the British reaction to IRA terror in the UK. Did the British invade Eire to stop the IRA? No. If they had, they'd still be fighting a guerilla war throughout Ireland. That was our colossal mistake in how we tackled the problem of international terrorism. And our ignorant and trigger-happy armed forces have made things even worse wherever they go. When half of all surveyed Marines responded that it was acceptable to murder native civilians and cover it up (a notable, underreported news item from Iraq a few years ago), we had all the proof required to know that our Waffen-SS-style tactics and attitudes were never going to pacify a foreign population. (Too bad our modern gung-ho armed forces, recruiting so many misfits and psychotics from Generation Kill, and private mercenary companies are such a big part of the problem.)

But hey, endless war is what the tuned-out American public seems to like, so endless war we get. But we shouldn't cry too hard when the economy crumles like the house of cards it is, or when all our millions of new enemies strike back.