Fiendishly Complex

And David Brooks gives some of the best arguments against our full-blown counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan, but then says Obama's modified strategy may be the 'best' one 'under the circumstances'.

First, they say, COIN is phenomenally expensive. It consists of doing a lot of things at once — from increasing troop levels to nation-building — and doing them over a long period of time. America no longer has that kind of money, and Americans won’t accept a new 10-year commitment having already been there for eight.

Second, it may be possible to clear and hold territory, but it is looking less likely that we will be able to transfer it to any legitimate Afghan authority. The Karzai government is like an organized crime ring. The governing talent is thin. Plans to build a 400,000-man Afghan security force are unrealistic.

Third, they continue, the population in Afghanistan is too dispersed for COIN to work properly. There would be a few bubbles of security, where allied troops are massed, but then vast sanctuaries for the insurgents.

Fourth, COIN is too Afghan-centric and not enough Pakistan-centric. The real threats to U.S. interests are along the Afghan-Pakistani border or involve the destabilization of the Pakistani government. The COIN approach does little to directly address that.

Brooks is now a self-proclaimed 'moderate', which is pretty much what Obama is turning out to be, so he is supportive. It will be interesting to see what neo-conservatives and the Republicans say. I know those to the left of Obama are opposed, and this decision may be a game changer for many of them, who have been cautiously supportive up to this point.

All I know is that I'm glad it's not my kids going there to fight the Afghanis.