For a long time the insurgency in Iraq, and now the insurgency in Afghanistan, has been gaining in strength and tactics. Whatever short-term gains the coalition forces have been able to garner are truly insignificant when considering the larger picture.

This has been bungled from the very beginning. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, following our intervention, insanely meager forces have been dispatched to do a job that could only have been successful with overwhelming force.

The U.S. will be withdrawing forces in 2008 from Iraq and will undoubtedly have to do the same in Afghanistan, providing only quick-strike assistance and training. Russia lost. We lost. And the bottom line appears to be poor leadership. But the ultimate responsibility must be born by the American electorate. Who elected Bush a second time? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

"Cheney brought with him CIA evidence that reportedly included photos and electronic intercepts of al Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan."

Consider the source - Cheney - and his past nonsense about WMD's in Iraq, connections between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein, and draw your own conclusions as to whether or not his "evidence" in this case has any merit.

johann, do you really not think that there are TB or AQ elements in Pakistan? So, you're saying they're all in Afghanistan, right? Don't you want them eliminated there, then?

You better belive they're running back & forth across the border. If I knew I had protection in Pakistan, but not Afghanistan........Pakistan's where I'd hang my turban at night.

Johann....you took this board as an opprtunity to take a poke at Cheney.....but in this case, you know better.

Harry and Johann are prime examples of how ignorant some Americans are about what we are trying to accomplish over there. What ever happened to patriotism and supporting troop efforts? We are in a war that we did not start and I'm glad this time we did not back down. America sat by while the terrorist attacked us in Yemen, Lebanon, Kenya and many more places. God Bless America

While I am not necessarily a big fan of this administration, I have to say that I am becoming increasingly alarmed with the line of thinking similar to that of Harry (above). Respectfully, I would like to know what exactly "overwhelming force" is and what makes Harry believe it is a better alternative than the status quo. Didn't the Soviets use overwheling force? Yes, the situation is a mess, but war is inherently messy.

There are smart, devoted people who want to kill you becuase you are American. To be sure, there are now arguably more smart, devoted people who want to kill you because you are American - and parked in their home country. How would overwhelming force change that? Why is the current situation worse (or better) than the alternative? It is too easy to say "this sucks, the other way would have been better." What evidence you have to support this - or is this just a complaint?

This is what alarms me. In the media and from politicians, I hear complaining and I here gripes, but I do not hear thoughts. I do not hear reasoning that is essential to an informed debate and results in a sound policy. The consequence of shallow thinking? In my humble opinion, it is Bush and Obama. Men, who when elected (as Gov., Sen., or President) were largely elected on image and the absence of substance.
Sorry to pick on you Harry, but these times demand more than complaints. We need substance.

The enemy here and in Iraq is an ideology and it is the ideologies you have to wage a war against if there is to be any hope of winning. If the west had put a fraction of the cost of the material war into a strategic campaign of ideas and propaganda, including the idea of reform of the seriously flawed and corruptible religion of islam, and stuck with it over a complete generation I suspect it would in the long term have a much more profound effect. Keep your military forces to deal with containment and local fire fights while the long term war of ideologies has time to work. As satisfying and as “Good for the folks back home” as seeing bombs drop, and tanks take out a technical or two is it will NOT win the war against those with an ideology because they are happy to die for that ideology. You have to reach out to the books used in schools all over the muslim world, you have to reach their newspapers, tv and radio. You have influence what they read on the web. It will not be easy, but with just a tenth of the $370 Billion spent in Iraq so far I bet you could one heck of a lot. You have to attack their ideas, but the question is do western politicians have the nerve to do that or will they continue to jerk their knees to every media report?

Sadly I think Bush and his friends will never take this option because they have grown so rich on the back of this war and I doubt they really want to put the idea into people’s heads that wars are fought with more than just expensively purchased military hardware. His cabinet are now the richest in history because of their links with companies doing very nicely from this war, do you want to make them richer or do you want to win ?

I served for nine years in the Royal Air Force. I was deployed all over the world in that time. The most important thing I learnt in that time was that while a fully loaded combat aircraft was a truly impressive and stirring beast as you watched it taxi off the ramp and off to fight it was nothing compared to an idea that could infect the minds of thousands willing to die for it with nothing more than an AK in their hands.
corruptable religion of islam, and stuck with it over a complete generation I suspect it would in the long term have a much more profound effect. No counter insurgency war in history has ever resulted in a 'victory', at best all you can do is one day be forced to sit down and talk to the insurgents.