How does adding more US troops diminish others? I agree that long term, no one on our side thinks escalating is a permanent move, but to build those roads you mention, you do need to be able to secure vast swaths of contruction are to maintain security. Plus we still do need to get the head's of the organizations in order for this undertaken to be labelled a success. I still think his plan is more about shifting some resources to Iraq as a whole, not just troops. But thank you for the analysis from another school of thought with no digs, much appreciated and well thought out analysis.

He specifically said "more nonmilitary resources," hmmm, what could that mean? roads? wow!

In order to get anything built and stay open, there needs to be a security presence. I don't think we want to take over the country like the USSR essentially did.

This is a strong editorial that shows he understand the folly of Iraq, as he always has, and shows he is prepared to use our force to make sure we accomplish other goals.

Maybe you can spend the rest of the week harping on little points where you don't agree with Obama, instead of shouting at the rafters about the idociy of McBush.

Now the media can write about how the left doesn't like his stance on Afghanistan, instead of how McCain doesn't seem to remember it exists. Nice work.

My touchstone for understanding Obama's foreign policy is Shaun Appleby's diary about Obama's American Exceptionalism. Obama does not have much confidence in international institutions like the UN or NATO. He will not have the patience to work through issues with international partners when he, as president, can just use America's immense power to do what he thinks is right. Even his position that he will talk with adversaries shows this, he says he will talk with them, and if they won't come around to his way of seeing things then they will face the consequences. We can see hints of this approach in how he is restructuring the Democratic political apparatus to serve him directly, rather than negotiate with the various interests that make up the party as a whole.

While I am not happy with some of his more "conservative" positions, I have decided to forgo a 3rd party and vote for him (as has my family).  He's sure about a billion times better than another day of Republicans running anything.

Somebody has to get Osama Bin Laden.

He's still out there remember? I was in NYC on 9/11 and I assure you that nobody will complain about an increased military presence in Afghanistan.

I agree that he framed it the right way and making Afghanistan our #1 priority is a smart way to bait McCain in a debate.

As for the roads, as PHDinNYC4Kerry pointed out, "more nonmilitary resources" makes it obvious he's not only thinking about "fighting the enemy" but is also talking about "helping" another country.

You're forgetting the geopolitics here, Jerome

Stabilising Afghanistan, through civilian and military measures, is in fact MUCH more important than Iraq.

Why?

Because, as most Nato member countries recognise, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan will lead to it being re-exported (as is now happening) over the Pakistani border.

A unstable or fundamentalist Pakistan, with over a hundred nuclear warheads, is a much bigger potential threat to global peace than Iran.

Partisan preferences aside, as a Brit with many compatriots whose parents were born in Pakistan, think that Obama is thinking strategically here.

Good for him

Let's not do what Bush did and forget about Bin Laden. Building another road won't capture him. I wonder what Jerome would have said if Hillary proposed the same.

Major nations are refusing to send in troops unless they are sent to the most peaceful regions; the largest contributors are complaining that others aren't picking up the slack; each nation has different agendas - some are willing to go after terrorists and others want to focus only on development. The idea that introducing thousands of new US troops is going to weaken an already weakened NATO is ridiculous. Jerome, please stick to your analysis on domestic politics - you're actually very good at that. The rest - not so much.

about Afghanistan, but it sounds like a change of course is needed there.  

Hey look, a Clinton-themed ding on Obama by Jerome Armstrong.

That aside, and it should have been put far aside, as in not in your piece, I don't buy the "diminish NATO" or as some kind of get-tough-triangulation in Obama's calls for a greater presence in Afghanistan. It's merely EXACTLY what we should be doing, should have done, should keep doing and any other verb tenses I might be leaving out.

NATO isn't cutting it at this point. 9 lives the other day is 9 too many, and 9 more than would have been lost this weekend had we not looked away from the real battle to fight Bush/McCain's vanity project in Iraq. No discussion of Iraq should take place without a reminder of the mess Afghanistan remains thanks to Bush.

That's the issue. That's what this discussion should center on. Enough with the Clinton wah wah drama, Jerome. It's over.

is just a fancy word for electoral politics at the national level.

"I was sorta reading through it, waiting to see some sort of shift to a more centrist point..."

You were what?

So... you were intentionally reading the article so you could find something to criticize. And, surprise!, you found something.

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You just admitted in the first sentence of the second paragraph that you have no desire to be fair when it comes to Barack Obama.

Herein lies the reason my visits to MyDD have gone from several times a day to a couple times a week. I'm disappointed in you, Jerome. Fairness used to be your strong suit.

I'll have to opt for the cynical translation of this, instead of believing that Obama actually thinks he'll lead the Democratic Party into a more deeper US military entrenchment of Afghanistan.

While I personally find your analysis of the Afghanistan situation to be a little insulting, it's no more or less than I expected from post-primary Jerome Armstrong.  What really bothers me is the above grammatical error.  "More deeper" is something I learned not to write in grade school.

C'mon Jerome; I know it's the internet and everything, but help me out here.

Obama is seriously misguided about what we need in Afghanistan

Germany to send 1000 more troops to Afghanistan

France considers sending more troops to Afghanistan

UK sends more troops to Afghanistan

NATO May Supply More Troops for Afghanistan

A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan

I could not be happier with Obama's decision to draw a contrast with McCain on the specific issue of permanent bases.  It's a winner on both policy and political grounds, and McCain is absolutely wedded to his stance (which is, by the way, to the right of where the Bush Administration is publicly) as a result of the "100 years" statement.  I hope Obama will keep hammering this one from now until November.

On Afghanistan, I'm glad to see Jerome doing something I've been wanting more of, which is an actual policy debate on the subject.  Too often it seems like discussion is driven solely by the sentiment that Afghanistan was a good war and Iraq was a bad war, so our troops should be in Afghanistan.  But the past is the past, and the question is whether additional troops at this point in time will advance our national interest.  I think more debate on these terms is required.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely kettles of fish and one of the reasons the Bush administration deserves to be thoroughly damned is that invading Iraq beggared the resources that could have been used Afghanistan.

Aside from harboring irrefutable enemies of the United States that planned & executed the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was a far better choice for building a pro-Western anti-Islamist state.  The Afghanis were thoroughly sick of the Taliban and were eager or at least open to working with us.  

Instead, we gave the military part of the equation a half-assed amount of attention and screwed the pooch on the political, economic, and cultural parts of the equation...that sounds kinda familiar.