Afghanistan has been a talking point for ten years and the time for decision has come. Leave gracefully or continue to provide afghans with target practice. The question becomes is a US presence an incitement for local and cross border raids

The options are varied, but one thing is sure, without knowing what the Taliban will do you are left between a rock and a hard place. The strange part of this debate is it hangs not on military strategy but on a legal issue. The quality of empire is truly strained when you have to yield prosecution to local courts.

Shoring up despot regimes is what the US does well so why should Kazhai be different. The time has come for Afghanistan to stand on its own feet. After all, you can do just so much training and mentoring when the problem lies not in the quality of the training but the ethos of the people.

If the US leaves Afghanistan how will the CIA operate its drone program in Pakistan

Why the U.S. Can't Abandon Afghanistan - By Davood Moradian | Foreign Policy

Mission accomplished Tom, Al Qaeda has moved on, Afghanistan will remain a backward place whether the US is there or not

I can be persuaded for any course of action except the current surrender policy.

So, Tom, if I read you correctly, you would like to see escalation and an all out war on the Pustun people. What I don't understand is why you don't see your goal in Afghanistan as complete, why do you feel you need to turn the place into little america? You have really burned your bridges, the people are antagonistics towards you, you have failed to win their hearts and minds. Realise that the cultural divide is too great for you to have a lasting indepth relationship and move on as you did in Iraq. You don't need troops based there and your destabilisation of the region means you should leave

I guess ,like Obama ,we should be satisfied with 'falling short of the ideal " ? In his view ,that is the equivalent of victory .
Obama moves up deadline for Afghans to take lead security role - latimes.com

The only remaining detail evidently is determining how much tribute we pay to the pirate Karzai.
Afghanistan wants specific cash amounts pledged by U.S. in deal - Richmond Times-Dispatch: News

Tom, what is this obscession with victory? And what would you call victory? You have wiped out al qaeda in Afghanistan, you have killed OBL and many Taliban leaders, what is the definition of victory? Kill Mullah Omaha? You have all the victory you are likely to get, your troops are leaving the battlefield, fought to a standstill by a ragtag army of religious fanatics, leave before you suffer the same fate as the British and the Russians

You have to get used to the idea that the US isn't the all conquering force it was in WWII, you are safe in the knowledge you have the bomb and could take them all out any time you want to, but after all you are not the bully on the block, or are you?

Hello tom:

I believe I mentioned a LONG time ago that we lost in Afghanistan when YOUR boy, George W. Bush took his eyes off the prize and went into Iraq.

I see NO reason why I should change my assessment.

Frankly, your belief that victory is available over there mirrors your fantasy that you would win a civil war over here...

We LOST in Vietnam. We LOST in Iraq. We LOST in Afghanistan... To ME that takes NOTHING away from our military. They're good. They just can't win UNWINABLE wars. Only politicians and right wingers think they can.

Excon

You forgot Korea. Actually I'm kind of in the Tom Ricks camp who think that for the most part ,the Generals have become political entities instead of military leaders . There are a few exceptions since George Marshall left the army ;but way too few.

Hello again, tom:

We didn't LOSE Korea.. We broke even.

excon

You see Ex Tom doesn't get it he thinks you have to annilihate the enemy, reduce them to rubble and poverty, subject them, to have victory, To him anything but rape and pillage is a loss. You didn't breakeven in Korea, you won, the border was restored and the South Korean people prospered, You didn't loose in Iraq, it just didn't come out the way GWB wanted it. You haven't lost in Afghanistan, the result will just be different, no glorous capitalist ediface

You're delusional . We lost 54,246 soldiers in Korea... and on the other side of the 38th parallel is one of the most despotic regimes on the planet. And the only reason South Korea is a prosperous democracy is that we still "occupy" (as you guys like to call it ) the country almost 60 years after our "win" .

Tom that despotic regime existed before you went to war in Korea. That you failed to dislodge it and establish your capitalist utopia is not a loss but recognition that there are powerful forces in the world and you can't have your own way. How many troops did the other side loose; 750,000. Your statistics are a little out, american dead were 37,000 out of a total allied loss of 180,000 but the real loosers were the civilians; 2.5 million. To stop the slaughter was a victory. You invaded North Korean and upset the Chinese otherwise you might have had total victory, but your meglomaniac general made it plain what his intentions were for the chinese and it cost you victory over the North Koreans but take heart, you devistated their country, reducing it to rubble

Yes back to my point about poor Generalship being the biggest factor in our post WWII conflicts.

Your politicians also are at fault. Eisenhower was a general, he had the experience but the good sense not to commit to nuclear war. You could not finish the Korean war, to do was was to invite a war with the Soviets and China, you would have lost Japan and perhaps the rest of Europe with no choice but to use nuclear weapons. You are in the same position today, to push for absolute victory in Afghanistan could lose you Pakistan and you would only have OBL to show for it, vengeance yes, but empty glory

nope ,the rush to the Yalu was all MacArthur. Our problem is that too often our generals ,with few exceptions ,prepare to win battles and not wars.

Come on Tom you know Macarthur was given an open mandate, don't cross the 38th Parallel unless you are sure the Chinese won't intervene and what did he do, why? Because he was sure the nuclear deterrent and Russia's assurance to stay out of it would mean the Chinese wouldn't intervene. So he held his little crusade against communism and he wasn't stopped immediately by the politicians

Yeah big Mac did not consider the consequences of his rush to the Yalu. In that he is no different than General Frank ending his Afghan campaign after taking Kabul ;or later his Iraq campaign after his forces entered Baghdad... or Schwarzkopf cutting off his campaign in 1990 shortly after crossing into Iraq and then offering Saddam Hussein a cease fire that allowed Saddam to retain air superiority over the Iraqi civilians who were in rebellion.

Yeah, we know they were all chicken Tom, but it was a chicken in the White House pulling the strings. There have been a lot of bad decisions, but the political decisions have been the worst. Let's face it you need a new CinC, one who has military training. I don't think social work qualifies you to lead a military. Now I wonder what the political affiliations of these chicken littles were.

As far as Mac was concerned he came back one time too many, his success had turned him into a monster. He thought the orient was his empire

What successes ?