Shouldn't the government have to do a cost-benefit analysis of keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for another two years, given the huge sacrifice involved? Shouldn't that be a public document that outside experts can examine?
UPDATE: The Boston Globe has issued a "clarification" to its original story, indicating that Kerry's disagreement with the current Afghanistan war str...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's much-anticipated annual review of the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan is upbeat on progress and reaffirm...
To measure progress during wartime, Americans once employed pins and maps. Plotting the conflict triggered by 9/11 will no doubt improve your knowledge of world geography, but it won't tell you anything about where this war is headed.
WASHINGTON -- When President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan in December, he argued that by setting a deadline of next summer to begin ...
Recent restatements of policy from high-ranking administration officials flatly contradicts what Americans heard the president declare last Tuesday at West Point.
If you don't support increasing the amount of troops, that is a fine and patriotic position to have, but folks on the Left have got to quit rewriting history by pretending Obama is somehow suddenly a hawk on Afghanistan.
Implicit in the president's decision is an effective cap of about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more ass...
To suggest that the Afghan government will be in seriously better shape 18 months after 30,000 additional U.S. are dispatched is bizarrely out of touch with the strategy of the McChrystal report.
Reversing himself on Afghanistan would have demanded a kind of courage that has been wholly foreign to Obama. So we are left with an open-ended commitment to an unwinnable war.
Obama doesn't need a chief of staff. He needs someone to shake him until he feels something strongly enough to not just to talk about it but to act. He's increasingly appearing to the public like Dukakis without the administrative skill.
In a few days Obama will travel to Oslo, Norway to accept the Nobel Prize. One cannot help but feel, on the heels of this new Afghanistan stance, that he'll be coming into town for his peace prize with guns blazing.
Obama is working to persuade the American people that our interests in Afghanistan are worth sacrificing for, while he places a ceiling on what the United States is prepared to do. Therein lies the dilemma.
As Albert Camus once said, "The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back o...
I am told by people I respect that Barack Obama cannot pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan without becoming a one-term president. I think that may b...
I believe we need to more narrowly focus our efforts in Afghanistan and have a much more achievable and targeted policy, or we risk repeating the mistakes of Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan.
What Obama should really have been concerned with was Osama bin Laden's vow to first bleed the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, then break America's domination of the Muslim world by luring it into a final battle in Pakistan.
If the military gets what it wants and the tide turns in Afghanistan, Obama will get the credit; if it doesn't, at least the Democrats can say they gave the armed forces what they said they needed.
The Obama administration has to stop campaigning to get down to governing. All of the campaign-like speeches are becoming quite transparent to the American people and foreigners alike.
While we don't know what exactly is going through Obama's mind, or just when or in what form he will address us on his plan for the war in Afghanistan, we do know something about what his conclusions are likely to be.