Thanks for pointing out that our current vice president's track record related to foreign policy pronouncements and ideas is, at best, confusing.

Which is it Mr. Vice President: Russia-important partner for peace and stability or a failing oil oligarchy? Does he still want to divide Iraq into three parts?

I can't help but wonder that the Democrat's biggest challenge in 2011 will be finding a way to move Joe off the ballot and an electable Obama part II candidate on. I can already imagine the, "I need to spend more time with my family..." speech.

the good general's goal was to ensure he did not make any headlines. The press is just waiting to pounce on any gap between the uniforms and the suits.

Gen Petraeus is too smart to get himself caught in a "we are destined to rule the world with our British allies" moment at a garden club meeting.

Wasn't the General traveling and speaking across the Atlantic recently?

Maybe the man's just a little tired, and along with the strain of being CENTCOM, it just caught-up with him for the moment - and not a defining moment - there are no defining moments in counter-insurgency.

"But I think the biggest lesson of Vietnam is to not be a prisoner of lessons you may have learned."

Which is precisely what worries me - that we are too eager to apply lessons learned in Iraq to what appears to be a vastly different situation in Afghanistan.

I think we should be happy as a nation that Obama has taken the time to re-consider Afghanistan and make public comments that show his hesitancy to engage more troops in what appears to be a lost cause. His standard that the war has to be achievable is very wise.

Tom Ricks has a lot of experience as a journalist covering military affairs, but he doesn't have a lot of experience as a journalist covering US politics relating to non-military/foreign policy affairs.

So maybe Mr. Ricks should stick to his expertise rather than brazenly assert that the Vice President of the United States is, effectively, an idiot. This isn't Dick Cheney, after all.

I attended General Petraeus's speech last week over here in London. He was very boring, even though he had a very British Establishment audience listening very sympathetically. If he was feeling impatient about the White House review of McChrystal's submission, he did not betray it in the slightest.

If I were to speculate on what was worrying the General, I would say it was the Afghan government -- he freely acknowledged how troubling the presidential election was, and in talking about the political side of COIN he placed great emphasis on working with local authorities -- he was deliberately vague about Kabul.

"By the way, when was the last time Biden was right about anything?"

Come on, Tom, that comment is beneath you. Biden's a smart guy, he didn't just walk into the White House and sit down at the VP desk. You want to say that he often talks before engaging his brain, fine, but he's had a lot of good ideas, and the idea that we should scale back in AF and do COIN while focusing on CT in PAK, let the Afghani security forces do what they are supposed to do, makes a lot of sense. And he happens to have Gen (ret) Krulak, COL (ret) Pat Lang, and a lot of other supporters on that idea.

What’s the story with Petraeus's Latin American tin pot dictator look? MacArthur and Ike managed to wear just their rank and every now and then a ribbon or two on their uniforms. Of course Mac and Ike actually accomplished something so it probably wasn't necessary for them to doll up their uniforms to impress the clueless public and impressionable sycophantic military commentators.

How about during most of the 08 campaign, when he was hammering on incessantly about how we need to focus more on our strategy towards Pakistan and ditch our Musharraf-centered approach? I guess that was another classic dumb Biden move?

I could of course go on and on about domestic policy - Violence Against Women, the mid 90s crime bill, etc.

Or returning to foreign policy, how about his consistent prodding of Karzai to combat the corruption in his own government, or his bill now being shepherded through the Congress on dramatically increasing foreign civilian assistance to Pakistan?

Or his prodding during the Bush years and in the campaign for a strategy of engagement not verbose belligerence towards Iran?

Really goofed there, didn't he? I'd really prefer Ricks stick to stuff he knows rather than off-offhandedly dismissing someone he doesn't know much about outside the context of Iraq and Afghanistan.

When this debacle began, there were a lot of troops sent to Afghanistan, but the majority were quickly sent to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry and for several years, Afghanistan was referred to as “The Forgotten War” by the troops who had served there. Apparently those in the white house didn’t care much about Afghanistan until things got much worse and by that time it may have been too late. If the Army had been allowed to fight like General Shinseki stated at the onset, chances are our forces may have made a significant difference, but Cheney, Rumsfeld , et al wanted a cheap quick war. I know the civilians are the ones to tell you you’re going to war, but when did they get qualified to tell generals how to fight wars?

Regarding the bit about being a prisoner of lessons learned, as long as you run a military force with conventional minds, you will constantly fight a conventional war. While the weapons may change, the strategy will remain constant.

The lesson we learn in every war is to learn from your expierance, but not to be captured by it. We learn from Vietnam, but should not be fall back to it as the comparison for every conflict, there is much more to military history than Vietnam to learn from.

This whole situation in Afghanistan is eerily similar to the lost decade we experienced in Vietnam, when we allowed the Diem family to sap the will of the nation to resist efforts by the North to undermine their legitimacy. The Bush administration allowed this situation to fester in Afghanistan for almost eight years, doing even less to correct than we did in Vietnam back in the late 1950s. Now, we face a crisis with a clapped-out Army, depleted by a worthless adventure in Iraq. Trying to make up for lost time requires some major sacrifice by everybody, which includes some of the Army brass who might try falling on their swords publicly to atone for their bad judgment during the past eight years.

Further, this talk about creating Afghani security forces to deter the Taliban and AQ sounds like a replay of the Regional Forces/Popular Forces debate which raged during Vietnam. These local militia were created in response to the deteriorating situation in Vietnam in the late 1950s. They performed wonderfully through the early 1960s, as shown by how much success the US and the Republic of South Vietnam had against the Viet Cong until the Diem regime was overthrown. I seem to remember hearing that the acted mostly as a supply depot for the VC, typically losing much of their weaponry and ammunition in any engagement. Does anyone imagine that we would see different results this time? I'd like to know why.

Mr. Ricks,

It seems, General McCrystal has put the ox before the cart. By this I mean, should have not the President had a strategy, before the General decided on the tactics? It seems the General devised the strategy, and told the President to give him the tactics.

Also, the election in Afganistan seems to have caused alot of concern, but did we have a non-corrrupt legitimate government in Iraq, when we conducted the surge?

Sincerely,
11bravo

Whether Biden is right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is after 9 years(?) "what are we doing in Afghanistan?" Can anyone in Government articulate a position that can be understood and accepted by the people? We are spending valuable lives and resources chasing a ghost. Its time to pack up and leave, if they come after us we'll fight them.

If the CIA had not got involved with Afghanistan, when Russia was there, would we be having these problems today. Perhaps the World Trade center would still be standing and our troops at home. Hard to tell but those that think they are smarter than any one else on foreign policy are just nuts. Which this writer seems to think he is. If Iraq had been split into three provinces would it be better of than today? Who can say,but perhaps Mr Biden was right about that. How many times has this writer been dead wrong on what he has written, this being one. I have my opinions about this war, but first I have to know just why we are there now. What is the objective? Chasing ghost is right. I feel that troops on the ground in this kind of war is not the winning way, more technology is needed and for the Army to get into the 21 Century. But it is a decision that the President has to make, not me, thank God.