But at least there was an overarching agenda.

What is that agenda in Afghanistan? Western civilization, where women are honored and given a position equal to men in their society? One man, one vote?

What is victory in Afghanistan? Either before or after Obama?
I realize Obama merely supported Afghanistan for political reason, so he could prove he wasn’t a Chamberlain.

Maybe I need to read McChrystal’s plan (is it even public). Maybe the answer’s there.

The war in Afghanistan was lost when President Obama declared that our objective was not victory. Whether it is Germany and the Armistice that “ended” WWI, the Korean Armistice that put war on hold at the DMZ of Korea, or the cease-fire that convinced Saddam that he had won the first Gulf War, anything but total victory only ensures the enemy that they have survived to fight another day. Obama’s rejection of our victory in Afghanistan as our goal only guaranteed the Taliban and Al Qaeda the opportunity to say that they stood up to the world’s two largest superpowers (the Soviet Union and the U.S.)…and won. We will reap the whirlwind.

I have asked previously what “victory” in Afganistan would look like.

Bernard Finel asks 10 questions that deserve an answer about Afghanistan.

I have become a skeptic of the continued American involvement in Afghanistan. Like many skeptics of the policy, I am willing to be convinced to change my views. But unfortunately, most of the arguments in favor of an escalation of the conflict provide unconvincing strategic rationales. I believe that a compelling case for increasing our commitment must be able to provide convincing answers to these 10 questions.

(1) Why does the possibility that al Qaeda might establish a sanctuary in Afghanistan justify a multi-year commitment of American forces, while the reality of an al Qaeda sanctuary in Pakistan justifies nothing more than financial support to the Pakistani government and occasional Predator strikes?…

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/25/doubting_afghanistan?page=0,0

We are at a historic impasse with two distinct and different Rules of Engagement, not just in the military, but for civilians as well. These two different camps have become more evident in D.C. and on the battlefields the past 20 years.

Points 1 & 5 are cut from the same tattered cloth. It is a first person mentality and reflects that neither man has every worked in a group, for a group or for the success of a group. Self serving and self centered – morally bankrupt.

Point 2 is a case study in what constitutes moral bankruptcy. The mere mention of the ‘un’ makes my head spin and my face contort. Global whores, thieves and pimps doesn’t even begin to sum it up. It is ‘baksheesh central’ taking their cut of money and resources where ever they plant their feet.

There are others in the room who can speak to points 3 & 4.