.... and Team America can protect the entire populace.

"I wish Ignatius also had written about the need to have U.S. troops protect the people from the brutality and abuses of Afghan soldiers and police. The need for more U.S. forces isn't just about insurgents. The predatory behavior of some of them has driven Afghans into the arms of the Taliban."

American police depts can't keep up with crime. You foolishly think that our military can police the country, fight a war, and build schools and roads at the same time. You are delusional.

Empire is expensive. Can't wait 'til we are unable to borrow once more cent from the Chinese, then all of this world police shit will end.

For anyone inside the Beltway who thinks Afghanistan or Iraq is vital to the national interest, please walk around DC at night (not the nice areas) and if you survive, I think you will agree that money should be directed at that true crisis.

I'm not one to agree with much of what Friedman writes (or Ignatius) but...

"'Iraq matters,' he states flatly. He doesn't say why."

Yes he did. It was in the preceding sentence: "... a decent outcome there really could positively impact the whole Arab-Muslim world, and limit our exposure elsewhere." One can disagree with that, but I think it's unfair to say that he didn't say it.

Actually, it is Ignatius who fails to explain why Afghanistan matters. He just jumps straight into a justification for a troop increase. I guess he's just relying on the long-held view that we have a national interest in denying sanctuary to AQ in A'Stan, even though the assumptions underlying that argument have been seriously questioned for quite a while now.

Agree with your paragraph about ANSF interactions with the public and the excessive checkpoints.

Nice to see a cameo appearance by Itchy and Scratchy. Best cartoon ever.

Agree with you on Friedman. Disagree on Iraq.

I certainly don't buy into the "Wolfowitizian" view that it can become a beacon of light in the Middle East, spreading democracy throughout the Gulf.

But it is an important buffer in the Shia/Sunni, Persian/Arab conflict. Managing conflict there appropriately, minimizing any proxy war that arises, prevents a larger regional flare-up that would be devastating to U.S. interests. Look at the fear that's arisen just over the Yemeni insurgency.

This type of flare-up is much more likely than the Armageddon scenario of al Qaeda acquiring a nuclear weapon via Pakistan. Whatever sympathies Pakistani officials have for extremists, the suicide attacks in response to the recent offensive have surely convinced them that they are a force that can't be controlled.

And I would love even more to see Ignatius and Friedman dismember each other on TV. (okay, slight exaggeration)

What a disgrace to Hobbes. What makes Ignatius a Hobbesian?

Obviously Friedman says Iraq matters because he has endlessly promoted that war. The most respected foreign policy columnist in America can't just reverse his position on something, no matter how wrong he was.

You can't be serious about being on the ground. I'm not so sure Ignatius sees Afghanistan exactly as it really is. I wonder which of the "few Afghans" Ignatius talked to makes his commentary better. If they did, he should at least name them, right?

So you realize that we have to "defeat" the Taliban and protect the people from the Afghan Army and police. The same army and police who are our exit strategy. How can you be for continuing this misadventure?

Afghanistan is one of the 5 most corrupt countries in the world. Eliminating some checkpoints isn't going to help.

I usually don't like Friedman, but I agree that now Iraq is more important than Afghanistan; not in the sense that Iraq will be a shining example, but if Iraq degrades into another civil war, it will have much worse implications being smack dab in the middle of the world's (our) energy supply. The instability could rise tensions in the region and spill over into neighboring countries, and Iran would probably gain more influence.
However, fighting in Afghanistan really doesn't affect us, unless we have Americans sitting in the crossfire. There was a full blown war raging there for the past several decades, first with the Russians then among different Afghan factions after they left. No one during that time period was suggesting this fighting was a severe threat to our strategic interests, except for those who feared Russia was trying to get a warm water port. The notion that a couple thousand Pashtun tribesman can overthrow the half million man Pakistan army is pretty ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the ISI has always seen and used the taliban as proxies against Indian influence in Afghanistan, which is THEIR MAIN concern. I'm baffled every time pundits 'expertly' debate Afpak without even mentioning this Pakistani-Indian dynamic.

Simply put, the Middle East is America's most important region. It is about oil. The ME is and always has been looked upon as strategically vital for access to Arabian Peninsula (or is that Persian Gulf) oil. One problem America has is not knowing when is the right time to project military force as opposed to utilizing world economic markets to keep prices stable in the region.

Also of importance is the Palestine-Israel issue. It would be helpful if there was a consistant policy from White House administration-to-administration. All conversations always come back to this. It is a rallying cry to fall back upon for all Islamic militants when they run out of rhetoric.

Afghanistan on the other hand, is as strategically important to the U.S. as we want to make it, and we are about to find out how important that is very shortly.

I would have to ask just how the troop surge in Afghanistan will win the hearts of the people? This failure has been a talking point, one on which this devolving war pivots. You talk of checkpoint shakedowns and abuses committed by Afghan military/police. Yet are these not the very units that the coalition forces are charged with training? How can we entrust them with providing requisite security and protection for the population if oversight is lacking and punishment for these offenses is not enforced or taken seriously? Also, the villages in Afghanistan's vast remote regions are rarely mentioned by most writers who focus their attention on cities. Is not this unprotected population more vulnerable to the political vagaries of self-aggrandizing warlords and the Taliban? I believe that the lack of basic infrastructure, education and literacy, civil and women's rights and human services, exacerbated by the traditions of a strict religious culture, make our presence untenable. Under these seemingly implacable conditions, our strategies appear feckless, even naive.

Tom, Excellent synopsis. My guess is that the President will announce renewed support for Karzai, who will make concessions on governance and reconciliation. More troops will be planned for, although a focus may be on building the Afghan National Army and Police. In light of weak governance, our limited capacity (both military and especially civilian), and the conflicting ambitions of meddlesome neighbors, we will have to scale back the COIN strategy both geographically and politically....

If I remember correctly, Friedman was one of those who claimed we'd be greeted with flowers and parades in Iraq and it would transform the Middle East because they're all yearning for freedom and democracy; and this is just one of the many many things he's been wrong about.

That said, just pull up a map and you can see that of course Iraq is more important than Afghanistan. And it's not just the oil, but the oil is a big part of it.

. . . today, saying "I guess what I suspect is that much of what the US is trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan is basically undoable. Success comes when the locals shift - like the Anbar Awakening. Perhaps there are things we can do to help such shifts."

Tom, again, not rhetorical questions:

First, what would Iraq have looked like 2007-2009 without the Anbar Awakening (and Moqtada's simultaneous stand-down)? Would our surge/COIN have had much effect?

Second, would there have been an Anbar Awakening/Moqtada stand-down if we hadn't been there?

Third, was the tactical success of the surge worth it, given the failure of the surge strategically?

Fourth, are there any lessons here for Afghanistan, or are the cases so different as to be incomparable?

Fifth, really, wasn't Bugs Bunny the best-ever cartoon? Great for kids, but full of all kinds of references for adults too. And to-die-for graphics. Will never see the like again.

Very good post, excellent read. Friedman is a fool and Ignatius is very thoughtful and astute. Nonetheless, friedman isn't exactly wrong about Iraq. Let's consider that for the first time in its history, Iraq is governed by the Shia majority. From its founding when the Brits put Faisal on the throne through Saddam, the Sunnis have ruled with varying degrees of brutality. Now, one of the main causes of an insurgency (lack of support for the government among the people) is gone in Iraq. Yes, there's corruption and violence and these will continue. I doubt that the Iraqi people want to give up what they have gained.

Afghanistan presents a grimmer picture.
I wonder, though, how it is that so many are now pointing out that Iraq was winnable but Afghanistan isn't.

Well, yeah -- I used to argue that on many a blog in 2005-6 when I as defending Bush's rather brilliant decision to fight in Iraq rather than Afghanistan. That was obvious to me, as was the need to put Petraeus in charge and fight a counterinsurgency war.

But now we find ourselves facing a decision about the importance of afghanistan -- a landlocked, poor, backward country -- to us. At this point, I actually agree with Ignatius. Now, in 2009, Afghanistan is winnable and it needs to be won.

I have to ask, is this really a hard decision? Either we're going to support McChrystal, give him the troops he wants, and use our political capital to build support among the American people and our allies. Or, we're going to pull back, adopt some kind of Biden solution, bsically abandon large parts of Afghanistan with the belief that it won't eally matter who runs the country, the Taliban, Al Qaeda or Karzai (since the country is basically ungovernable).

Either position is defensible, either can be presented to the American people. Obama has to make up his mind and move on this, however.

Ignatius cited one possible "ink spot" (checkpoint control) which will dissuade corruption and buy time to bolster the ranks and create more effective ANA and ANP.

Unfortunately, there is a serious plot hole here- how to maintain the ranks of ANA and ANP once their numbers are increased. I have yet to see a plan for how to pay for all these new recruits. The quicker the US can admit that it would require a gargantuan commitment of US treasure, the faster we realize Afghanistan would nearly be permanent surrogate state.

Friedman cites the moderate voices yearning for change which is Conflict Resolution 101- people will stop killing each other when they feel they've had enough. Like Ignatius there is a plot hole here- a moderate in Afghanistan is not a moderate in Iraq or Lebanon. Neither Iraq nor Lebanon can admit there has been a 35-year civil war (when the king was overthrown) the result of which was a debilitating "brain drain" with consequences to this day. That being said so-called moderates in Afghanistan are largely entrepreneurial and have little interest (at least the ones I've met) in making direct policy decisions within the current Karzai government. If things get that bad they usually leave for Dubai and leave the house keys to a trusted servant with a vague promise of returning.

though the Rousseauian Friedman produces optimistic non-fiction works,

Friedman's basically been a weathervane on what you might call "establishment optimism". Back in the late 1990s, when globalization was all the rage, he went out and wrote a work praising globalization and giving all of these first-person accounts of finding MacDonalds everywhere. When said establishment was feeling somewhat optimistic on the Iraq invasion, so was Friedman (remember the infamous "Friedman Units"?), although he wasn't so naive as to think it would be a cake-walk afterwards. When that optimism shifted, so did Friedman. And when there suddenly came a greater degree of concern over global warming and oil dependency mixed with (largely unfounded) optimism over "green jobs", here comes Friedman with a book on that.

Also, I think Friedman tends to be influenced a bit more by diplomats,

More specifically, he tends to be heavily influenced by western-educated, english-speaking, well-to-do folks wherever he goes who espouse the kind of liberal optimism he wants to hear. That is, when he's not interviewing taxi drivers.

I would have to disagree with you here at one point. I am sure you have lived in Afghanistan and have vivid views about her but your observation about Pakistan's Nukes tells that perhaps you have never been to the country or never studied the Nuclear security for Pakistan Arsenal. Recently to her visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton eloquently asserted that she has no doubts about Pakistan's nuclear security (http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idarticle=20735). Pakistani security forces and Military is equipped well enough and is capable of taking care of it's nukes, even from a very exponential threat. President Obama has stated it very clear that he has full confidence in the Nuclear Arsenal Security for Pakistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/obama.transcript/). So please stop assaying these hypothetical scenarios. You might want this to be added in top 10 Halloween monsters too. I believe its far better secure even in comparison to very well advanced countries that no bunch of crazy militants can take over it.

Quote: Ignatius does better. First, he's on the ground, in Kandahar,

What the hell is he doing there in the first place? To have his very white self walking around in the Taleban stronghold is a sign of trouble.

More troops! Stop me if you've heard this one before... Concerning Pakistan... How is having 10,000, 20,000, 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan make Pakistan any safer?

We would need north of 600,000 troops in Afghanistan to play COIN... stop culturalized corruption, narco-terrorism, mistrust by the general population of foreigners... especially ones with guns... More troops will stop that? Will roll back centuries of culture, values, beliefs? Please!

We need to leave..

Concerning Friedman...I wouldn't follow him across the street... Check out some of Matt Taibbi's comments... :)

From Taibbi: "Remember Friedman’s take on Bush’s Iraq policy? “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel,” he wrote, “as long as you remember you’re driving without one.” Picture that for a minute. Or how about Friedman’s analysis of America’s foreign policy outlook last May:

The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging.When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.”

First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once? Secondly, what the f@#$ is he talking about? If you’re supposed to stop digging when you’re in one hole, why should you dig more in three? How does that even begin to make sense? It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if the editors over at the New York Times editorial page spend their afternoons dropping acid or drinking rubbing alcohol. Sending a line like that into print is the journalism equivalent of a security guard at a nuke plant waving a pair of mullahs in explosive vests through the front gate. It should never, ever happen."

http://www.editurl.com/4lw

This, from the Sunday edition of the Wash Post, will answer some of your questions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002862.html

But not all.

Best,
Tom