Is that it?

I was appalled.

He's facing probably the toughest situation any american president has run into.

And he's decided to spend his political capital on two more distant unwinnable wars.

We can't afford this. Not only do we not have enough money. We can't even pay enough attention.

Thereason we need US troops in aghanistan is because there aren't enough trained afghan troops to protect the afghan government.

There are lots of trained afghan troops in afghanistan, they just happen to support various other factions instead of the government.

This tells me that we are backing losers.

"Moderate taliban" is a codeword. It's like, once we fight with some afghan force we decide they're Taliban and then we can't be friends with them ever again because we've decided they're the enemy. The afghan groups naturally think in terms of shifting alliances and we've confused them by deciding that all our enemies are permanent enemies who belong to Taliban, which we seem to interpret as some sort of top-down organization that people belong to permanently.

So when we say "moderate taliban" we're telling people they can get an amnesty, that just because they've fought against us before doesn't mean we can't make a deal now.

There's no telling how many factions we can bring in that way. Maybe all of them, if we pay them enough and if we pay attention to each group's negotiating points.

Except, how does that help the afghan government? We can buy lots of cooperation with hard currency, but the afghan government can't do that. We want these guys to accept a permanent alliance with the afghan government with no shifting, when the afghan government doesn't have the money to bid for loyalty the way we do. It can't get that money except from us, and its top priority might not be to give it to people with dubious loyalty so they'll do something-or-other in places the afghan government has only nominal sovereignty anyway.

Once again, we wouldn't need large numbers of combat troops, or even moderate numbers, except we're backing losers. And I haven't seen much to show that the losers we're backing are that much better than the guys we aren't backing.

He obviously would be aware of the issues you mention, yet his decision is a dance around those issues: he can't back away because he campaigned on doing something about Afghanistan [a disingenuous promise as far as I'm concerned made because he had to project military gravitas but for obvious reasons couldn't use Iraq for such]; yet moving aggressively on Afghanistan is full of risks and burdens that he evidently has no appetite for - so he opts for a relatively 'safe' compromise and crosses his fingers. Hard to come to any other conclusion than that this is just essentially window dressing - expensive, combustible window dressing, but a show all the same.

Right now the Pakistani armed forces are part of the problem.

This is something which doesn't benefit from sunshine. Its like weeding out the weeds in a minefield. The more sun, the faster they grow.

Its a rebus. Good luck.

Isn't it possible that the militaristic policies our government knows and loves have become defunct in the twenty first century?

Could we not envision a military which operates under the assumption that it is far better to BUILD a country than to destroy one while hunting for witches, the so-called "terrorists"?

Here's what I mean...In Iraq, we have recently agreed to leave a nation destroyed by firefights...one which is in absolute disarray without a military or a police force that can control it's own civilian population. Bombings are increasing daily as we exit the scene.

But far worse than that is the blunt fact that there is precious little city drinking water, an unreliable electrical source, roads in disrepair, insufficient hospitals and staff, insufficient food supplies, need I go on here? Irag is a shambles and it's people are destitute with little or NO HOPE. They cannot even pump and distribute their own oil successfully, which is their only source of income.

I would propose that the American government might well be better off to establish a true CHANGE in it's foreign policy vis a vis it's militaristic agenda.

Forget sticks and stones, bomb and aircraft, tanks and missiles, drones and all the rest of the dragons of militaristic thought for the last twelve trillion years of the existence of beasts. (Exaggeration intentional, for we really can't agree on long we've been here. Authorities differ).

Suppose our soldiers were armed with electrical grid componentry, water supply technology, hydroponic gardening skills and organic fertilizers for countries with poor or no soils, a knowledge of how to produce something other than opium, bring in hospital equipment, hospital staff...you get my drift?

We are in a position to slay the beast of Al Quaida, the Taleban, and all other comers by simply giving the people of the countries under "terrorist" influence and control HOPE for a manageable future INDEPENDENT of the terror organizations who always ALWAYS successfully use our best attempts to kill off the perpetrators of wrong doing AGAINST the U.S. by means of propaganda.

To HAVE a friend, it is said, one must BE a friend. Can we figure out a way to BE a friend to the Afghan population? Wouldn't they then HOPE to see us coming down the road, rather than HATE US for having killed their civilian friends and family members?

Why, I wonder, are we so blind, and for how long will that condition last? to paraphrase a NAM era rock tune: "Somethin's happenin' there,
What it is, IS exactly clear"...
...we are losing Afghanistan, Pakistan, have lost Iraq, and will lose our own nationality if we don't step back and take a deep breath, re-focus on POSSIBILITIES, and work from a humanitarian viewpoint.

The militaristic code of destruction is not working, and hasn't worked since W.W.II

It IS time for a change, Mr. Obama.