The cost of war in in dollars alone requires a choice not only to stop sending troops but also to withdraw all U.S. military forces and invest in civilian-led development of Afghanistan's devastated communities.
Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, kept squabbling and trading charges of fraud until the election pre-rigged by Washington fell apart. The real ruler of most of Afghanistan remains the US military and Obama.
Here, in Afghanistan, the election has been in crisis since it took place. And though so many are ready for it to finally be over, no one could move on until Abdullah made his withdrawal official.
Talks between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah broke down today, October 30, according to CNN, meaning there will be no power-sharing arrangement to head off a highly problematic runoff vote.
As Washington plots its course for Afghanistan, it would do well to test alternatives against America's 20th-century chronicle of victories, defeats, stalemates and what-ifs.
Why isn't Mr. Karzai being held responsible for this blatant act of election fraud? And who can guarantee that a repeat of the fraud won't happen? Or that all hell won't break loose during the run-off?
If the U.S. and international community are serious about this intervention and having any kind of political success (and less war) in Afghanistan, it should call a Loya Jirga, or a "grand assembly".
Everyone here is impatient to know the outcome of the much-discussed, controversial Afghan elections, but two months have passed and still no one has a clue about the real situation.
Through a combination of wise leadership and some fortunate historical accidents, the problems stemming from the Mexican Revolution in the 20th Century were solved with only limited American intervention.
It's time to declare victory and begin to get out of Afghanistan rather than descend deeper into an intractable civil war that we neither comprehend nor in the end will care much about.
More troops are not the answer in Afghanistan. We need to lower the overall level of military conflict as quickly as possible, and the only way to do that is to sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops.
Just back from Afghanistan, I began to daydream about Karzai speaking directly to the American people to take responsibility for his government's failings and seek support for U.S. engagement in the country.
I do not believe that military victory in Afghanistan is simply a matter of reappearing with enough troops and the right military strategy.
Afghanistan is not a numbers game. The issue is whether we are pursuing a strategy that defines our goals and tailors our means to them.
New research indicates that 80% of Afghanistan now has a permanent Taliban presence and that 97% of the country has "substantial Taliban activity."
Recently we convened a workshop of senior scholars of South Asia studies and asked them to evaluate the US role in the region. They agreed upon the following five principles as the bases for formulating a new policy
Public distaste for the Afghanistan War can easily make it Obama's Vietnam -- history should serve as a warning for him.
Though Pakistanis had once bristled at the idea of being lumped in with the Afghan state, there is now a subtle admission that their futures are shared.
Citizens aren't usually forced to divide their attention between a groundbreaking election and nine decades of self-determination. But we are talking about Afghanistan here.
Clearly, we would prefer the Afghan government take on this mission, but until they can do so themselves, in order to prevent more American civilian deaths, we must do it ourselves.
