Matt Yglesias reads Time magazine and writes:
Joe Klein’s article on the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is informative, but doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. It seems that military planners want the Obama administration to dispatch further additional troops to Afghanistan over and above the plus-up that’s already been announced. But nobody really knows what the mission of these troops would be.
…. Just about everyone seems to agree that the more serious problems are actually in Pakistan…and they’re ultimately political in nature — related to the willingness and capability of the Pakistani government to take on Taliban groups in border areas and, importantly, related to public opinion in Pakistan regarding priorities.
He’s right. Klein’s article is here, and it’s dismal reading. I never really thought the Vietnam analogy was apt in the case of the Iraq war, but in the case of Afghanistan it seems to fit all too well: troop increases every year, diminishing success rates, no real strategy in place, and major problems with neighboring countries. Unlike Iraq, destroying al-Qaeda’s ability to wage war is obviously in our national interest. But until someone produces a credible plan for accomplishing this, it’s difficult to see what we’re doing there.