Please. This is a laughable blog post. It reads like a point by point argument against a renewed commitment to this thirdworld backwater, only to turn around and say the most negative thing about the current campaign is our president's doubts. be grateful he does have doubts. we have been there 8 years, pal. what have we been doing? what was bush doing? was he asking the military commanders how things are going? if they said "everything's good", did he stop asking questions? Wars aren't baseball games, where managers (President Obama) ask players (Generals) if they're "alright," hand them an ass-slap and tell them to get going. People on both sides are dying. Policymakers have to dig deeper. Obviously, it would be optimal to "win," but considering the massive commitment we and the international community have already made, people naturally start having doubts about what's possible. Bush never did this, and it got us into two quagmires.
I wish the National Review would take you as a blogger, because I find your posts laughably partisan and ridiculous. And I don't read that crap magazine. Given your intense partisanship, and because George Will probably worked at the NR at one point, you feel the need to bash him and his recently revealed anti-war opinions specifically. So you tag him with labels nauseating to conservatives--Jack Murtha (I agree, that FBI tape is nauseating), George McGovern, and Michael Moore. I guess you want to insinuate that Will puts emotion ahead of clear-thinking on this issue. Not to be too catty, but this post is much more driven by partisan emotion than substantial argument--Will's is driven by quotes from people involved in the campaign (like soldiers and commanders) and fact-based reasoning. Even on that issue of our "national security threats" in the hypothetical "post-pullout" environment. I wish as much thought had gone into the "post-invasion" planning in both of these disastrous boondoggles, which you, respected professor that you are, likely championed with fists pumping.
On top of that, to steal an idea from FP's Steve Walt, where else in the world other than Afghanistan would you put these terrorists? Somalia? Well, that's where they'll head if we win. What a win it would be. If aerial bombing is good enough for Pakistan (a nuclear state), then it is surely enough for the most rugged, underdeveloped, wartorn "narcostate" in the world. Afghanistan is not a state. It is like the FATA in Pakistan--both on ethnic lines and in terms of govt. effectiveness.
Considering your blind faith in our ability to do what the Soviets couldn't (we're trying to put the genie back in the bottle they broke), you might make an argument as to why President Obama SHOULDN'T have doubts about the prospects of the war--since that's obviously your view. You know, tell us why things are going to turn out well there. Nothing? That's probably because you've got nothing.
Your one argument--the idea (hey, you're probably right) that the military gets pessimistic about the prospects for success when Presidents start asking tough questions--isn't good enough. If it were, then I wish they were pessimistic more often for just that reason. Doubts don't lose wars. They reflect what goes on in people's minds when wars are being lost. Ironically, the "captcha" I'm required to enter at the bottom of the post reads "antiwar naivete". That is likely the reaction Mr Feaver--or is it "Dr."? Somehow I doubt your ability to diagnose and mend wounds, especially the self-inflicted sort--would have to this comment.

Interesting. I would have thought that one of President Obama's most serious errors was in not recognizing the extent of the damage done by his predecessor's incompetent war management and lack of resolve with regard to Afghanistan in particular.

I share some of the doubts about the rather thin policy alternatives being offered now by most of the Obama administration's critics on this subject. Yet I have the persistent feeling that there are an awful lot of people in the American military who believe that we're not succeeding in Afghanistan because we did things wrong before, which means that we will succeed if we do things right now.

History doesn't work that way. In the winter of 2001-02, with the Taliban shattered, al Qaeda routed and all Afghanistan in awe of the speed with which this was done, America had an opportunity to begin constructing an Afghan government able to deliver services to its people. Afghans were glad to be rid of the Taliban, were not unfriendly to the Americans, and yearned for a government able to do more than demand bribes and conspire in the international drug trade. That window of opportunity was not going to stay open forever -- windows of opportunity never do. Years of George Bush's incompetent leadership may have closed this one for good.

Now, in the summer of 2009, Afghanistan has a government, identified by all too many with the United States. It is corrupt; it is dishonest; it conspires in the international drug trade; its officials are interested in protecting the Afghan population only as long as they think Americans are within earshot. I fear that the American military leadership in Afghanistan, understanding this, is thinking that since the Afghan government cannot protect the people, the American military will do the job and wait for the Afghan government to catch up. Given the most charitable assumptions about our Afghan allies, it could be a very long wait, longer than we have.

This turn of worm was easy to predict during primary and presidential campaigns of Obama - he clearly became a 'hawk' on Afghanistan because he believed he needed to show some foreign policy gravitas, a certain comfort level re the use of military force, in order to sway dubious moderates and independents. Iraq obviously wouldn't do seeing as he had opposed both the war and the surge that ostensibly saved it. No, it had to be Afghanistan - but he had no idea what he was committing to, probably didn't in a sense even care - just wanted to win an election and no doubt thought he could talk his way out of anything if he had to. This guy was always an uber liberal who believed he could use his putative powers of persuasion to convince [fool] the not so liberal segments of the polity to just 'trust him' when push came to shove.

But now reality intrudes and fantasy, as always, is forced to fall away. His poll numbers are down, the press, once obsequious towards him, now seems somewhat less timid to question. Having backed himself into a corner, what will he do? Can't blame Bush - he made a campaign promise to correct Bush's abandoning of Afghanistan - how can he now abandon it himself? But if he makes a commitment to step up the effort he abuses the sympathies of the left to which he owes his political fortunes, sympathies which the record shows fit best his own inclinations. Is it in this man to forge a policy that is not beholden to a particular ideology - in other words, if the right thing to do is to stay the course in Afghanistan, will he do that even if it makes him unpopular among the crowd he wants most to be popular with?

Obama's election was the culmination of a well crafted illusion - the important question has always been what happens when that illusion is no longer viable? Obama deliberately embraced Afghanistan, for cynical and deceitful reasons as far as I'm concerned - it will be poetic justice if he ends up paying a dear price for it. Unfortunately, though, we'll all end up paying that price.

Personally, I've always believed Afghanistan was a lost cause - mainly because I think there are only two options, go big or go small - we keep trying for some magical middle ground but COIN is a delusional attempt at compromise: you can't win a war like this by leaving the underlying culture intact - that is idiotic. But regardless of what's the right thing to do now I think it's important to realize that Obama's position has always been a phony one. Whether or not that continues to be the case, suppose we're gonna find out.

"We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war."

The irony here is striking. The president who mostly ignored Afghanistan for seven years after toppling the Taliban, and deprived the war effort there of necessary resources in order to pursue - at length - adventures in Iraq, is being held up as the paragon of steadfast support. I smell politics in that quote.

It's tragic that we can find War entertaining. I've been in contact with the enemy multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is nothing entertaining about it. Listen, I'm glad that we can talking about this in an open forum, but can we move past the partisan finger pointing and get to the nitty gritty which is stablizing Afghanstan and getting our brother and sisters (military, civilian and contractors) out. Any and all reasonable solutions are more than welcome. In the mean time, don't forget about our Service Members, Foreign Service Officers and their families while we work through this.