Reply #49: Thoughtful post, I'll try a thoughtful response.

[Truth2Tell]

However the goals have to be modest. We cannot be there to "control" or pacify the region but rather to destabilize our adversaries there...

Problem is, we ARE presently trying to "control" the region. Just destabilizing our adversaries would require fewer not more troops. What requires the large number of troops is maintaining the political status quo. Our leaders have made the determination that we need to RULE Afghanistan to achieve the objective of rooting out terrorism in BOTH Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm not buying that. I believe aggressive special ops and targeted strikes from elsewhere could achieve that same objective.

I couldn't imagine for a second being a father in that country of my two beautiful daughters knowing they would be deprived of dignity, self-worth, and an education.

This is not really the point. Many dozens of regimes around the world operate in an equally oppressive and brutal way. We support and enable many of them. Is it really the responsibility of our bankrupt nation to take on the challenge of correcting those inequities at the point of a gun? Sure, we should oppose such regimes whenever we can, but to invade and occupy foreign nations goes above and beyond our ability and our responsibility. It creates more enemies for our children to fight, and it violates all the rules of behavior designed by international institutions to prevent escalation of war and conflict. And if we DO want to take such an interventionist-humanitarian stance, shouldn't we at least begin with the long list of similar dictatorships that we strongly support?

Do we really want a Taliban run nuclear Pakistan?

There is no threat of this. The Taliban does not enjoy any real political following in Pakistan beyond the border regions. They are an Afghan-focused organization. There certainly are threats from radical Islamist elements in Pakistan, many deeply embedded in the current government, but Taliban rule in Pakistan is not a realistic scenario.

I just don't have a lot of compassion for Al Queda, their vision for the world, or their means of political and social expression. I do however have a lot of compassion for the innocents caught in the crossfire. Whatever methods we employ, the least amount of collateral damage is imperative even though it is unavoidable.

Not occupying all of Afghanistan and attempting to control the political makeup of the government there would lead to the fewest civilian casualties. Much of the support for the Taliban comes from Afghanis simply sick of occupation and rule by foreign powers, not from people with any sympathy for radical Islam or Al Queda. There are other ways to strike at Al Queda, whom we all want to destroy. It's important not to do things, like invade and occupy Muslim nations, that play right into their hands and unite the Islamic world behind them.

Let there be no doubt, a large scale terrorist attack on our country, if following a large reduction of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, will raise the odds of one term for Obama and then you will be hailing to President Palin or some other representative of the American-Taliban.

I fail to see how Occupying Afghanistan or even killing Osama (if he's not already dead) will reduce the chance of an attack on America. Al Queda has morphed into a worldwide, loosely organized network of like minded people. It's not a top down organization. Even the 9-11 hijackers, who were from Saudi Arabia, didn't plan their attack in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They did it in Germany and the USA. Why breed more terrorists by sending more troops to fight people who aren't Al Queda?

Unless your point is purely political. Fear of this scenario: Reducing troops ---> another attack ---> losing election, even if they are not related events. Well, it would frankly be immoral to continue a war based on that political calculus. And it would be immoral to keep breeding new terrorists based on that political analysis. So I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of discussion, and assume he's not actually thinking that way.

To a certain extent, you have to lend him some trust. I said lend, not give. He deserves the loan. But if over time, he does not live up to the bargain, I think everyone is well within their rights to withdraw that trust. But until then, a good leader needs good followers.

Good followers speak out when they think their leader is making fatal errors. We need to push Obama as hard as we can to do the things we believe it, regarding war and peace and everything else. The other side certainly does so.

...as long as conquest is not our aim, our hurdles for success won't be nearly as high as they were in Iraq...

It's worth saying again that if conquest wasn't our aim, we wouldn't need these additional forces. We need them to keep "our" team in charge of the country. Absent that goal, we could strike the opposition other ways to our hearts content. We wouldn't need anywhere approaching tens of thousands of troops.

The fantasy of Iraq, as it evolved, was to create a permanent safe military and oil producing haven for the United States in order to stave off the effects of peak oil as well as conquer the middle east.

True. However, the invasion of Afghanistan was part and parcel of this same exact plan. The neocons who hatched it in the first place wanted access to pipeline routes from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean, for the exact reasons you describe. They wanted to flank Iran. They had all sorts of ulterior motives beyond Al Queda. In fact they cared so little about Al Queda that they let them escape. And they emboldened and strengthened them with their invasion and occupation. Why continue down this counterproductive neocon path?

Also, we will always have deeper pockets, better weapons, and better trained armed forces.

The age of deeper pockets is coming to an end. And in the modern era of asymmetrical warfare, more troops, bigger weapons and better training means nothing. Smart over-arching strategic foreign policy aimed at making friends not enemies is all that can save us. Invading and occupying foreign nations is the opposite of that.

Expect us to be there throughout Obama's first term, and possibly his second.

Sadly I do. I expect us to be there, and the other outposts of the Empire, until the whole thing collapses of it's own weight. Americans are far too willing to swallow the rationales for this stuff. Our militarism is suicidal and bi-partisan, and it will be our undoing. Heck, it already is.