You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (474)

PLAYS: (860)

Russ Feingold reiterated what he’s been saying all week, that our troop escalation in Afghanistan doesn’t make any sense and will only increase instability in the region and Pakistan. When asked if there was anything that could be done to stop this now Feingold said this:

FEINGOLD: Well, that's difficult. And what's going to happen here is that it's probably going to be difficult to stop it now. We'll do whatever we can. We're already working with members of both parties in both houses to question whether this funding should be approved. We're going to fight any attempts to use sort of accounting gimmicks to allow it to be funded. If there's an attempt to have an emergency supplemental, I think that's something we're going to oppose, not only on the grounds of it being an unwise policy, but also being fiscally irresponsible.

Full transcript via ABC News.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard Secretary Gates there. Even though you've called the president's decision an expensive gamble, he says the United States must escalate because this is the epicenter of extremist jihad, and that's why our vital national security interests are at stake.

FEINGOLD: Well, Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter, although Al Qaeda is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Continue reading »

Sara Bareilles - Many the Miles

How far do I have to go, to get some truth? Many the miles...many the miles. Obviously, the news this Sunday revolves around Obama's decision to send a surge to Afghanistan: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be on no less than three of the bobblehead programs. Maybe on one of them, someone will ask them how we can justify $1,000,000 per year per troop to hunt down the less than 100 al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. At least soon-to-be GMA host George Stephanopoulos will have on Russ Feingold, who has been openly questioning the wisdom of the surge. And I know you've been missing him...John McCain back for his 878,967,543rd appearance on the Sunday shows. Will anyone ask him about his hypocrisy on his cozy relationship with big PhRMA lobbyists, despite decrying them on the Senate floor yesterday. Or judging by the Meter Questions on The Chris Matthews Show, maybe it doesn't matter, and the chance for health care reform has slipped by.

ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Clinton; Gates.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Clinton; Gates; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: John Heilemann, Katty Kay, Gloria Borger, Michael Duffy. Topics: Can Obama Do Anything Big Enough and Fast Enough to Help Unemployment? The Fame Game Behind the Grifters Who Crashed the White House State Dinner. Meter Questions: Will Obama Push A Big Jobs Bill Next Year? YES: 6 NO: 6; Will President Obama Sign a Health Care Reform Bill This Year? YES: 5 No: 7.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Gen. Jim Jones, national security adviser to President Barack Obama; Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Afghanistan: what will happen now that the president has announced a surge of troops? Fareed speaks with Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's Special Representative to the region, and Thomas Friedman. Plus, Mohamed ElBaradei -- who just left his post as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - on whether we are reaching a dead end with Iran.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai on President Obama's new military strategy in Afghanistan.

"Fox News Sunday" - Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command; Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and John Cornyn, R-Texas.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (603)

PLAYS: (2448)

Sen. Russ Feingold explained to Wolf Blitzer why he doesn't think a troop surge in Afghanistan makes any sense, and that he would vote against funding it.

BLITZER: Let's talk about this with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. He's a key member of both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee.

Did I get that right, Senator?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That's right, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, a key word there being key, is that...

FEINGOLD: That's right.

BLITZER: OK.

Let's talk a little bit about why you oppose what the president is doing. What's wrong with his logic?

FEINGOLD: Well, it just doesn't add up for me.

The president says, we're doing this. We're adding 30,000, 35,000 troops to finish the job. And I ask the question, "What job?" because the president has been so eloquent in pointing out our issue is fighting al Qaeda.

The argument falls apart when you realize that al Qaeda does not have its headquarters in Afghanistan anymore. It is headquartered in Pakistan. It is active in Somalia, and Yemen, North Africa, affiliates of it in Southeast Asia.

Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don't do that in so many other countries where we're actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense.

Continue reading »

Promoting his latest film earlier this year, Michael Moore ignored the achievements of the Progressive movement and the New Deal when he declared, "capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil." Now on the eve of President Obama's address to the nation on his Afghanistan strategy, Moore is rewriting the history of the campaign that put Obama in the Oval Office.

In an open letter to President Obama, Moore on Monday seems to have forgotten candidate Obama's aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

But at almost every turn in the 2008 campaign (for example, starting at about the 17:30 mark in the video above), it was Barack Obama who pledged to "finish the fight in Afghanistan."

In August 2007, as you'll recall, Senator Obama received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of a broad - and forceful - foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its "no safe havens" doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

And while Republican presidential candidate John McCain in February 2008 blasted Obama's advocacy of unilateral American attacks against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, by the beginning of last year the Bush administration itself was already carrying them out.

From almost the inception of his campaign, Obama argued that the diversion of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq meant that "the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice." In a June speech, Obama highlighted McCain's denial of this inescapable point:

"We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1116)

PLAYS: (2574)

Ed Schultz talks to Rep. Alan Grayson about the proposed war surtax to pay for Afghanistan. Grayson feels we've paid too much already for both Iraq and Afghanistan and that it's time to bring the troops home.

Schultz: $234 billion, that’s the price tag; that’s that eight years of war in Afghanistan has already cost this country. Now we’re sending 30,000 more troops—a nearly fifty percent increase. We have no idea how long they’re going to be there or how long it’s going to take to “finish the job”. The idea of a war surtax is gaining momentum in both houses of the Congress and with both parties for that matter. Joining me now Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Congressman good to have you with us tonight. Should we make sure that we can pay for this next military increase in Afghanistan and how would you propose doing it?

Grayson: I think we’ve paid enough. We’ve paid $3 trillion already for the war in Iraq—that’s $10,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. For my family, my wife, myself, my five children that’s $70,000. Enough is enough—we’ve paid enough for Iraq in both money and blood. We’ve paid enough for Afghanistan. Now it’s time to come home.

Schultz: So, we’re going to be there and the President’s going to make the announcement. We’re going there, so what do we do for the finances of this? Do we increase taxes and where do we go to do that?

Grayson: No, people are suffering too much already, but what we need to do is change the President’s mind and if necessary to vote to end the war. I think we need to do that. This is a war that really ended a long time ago and not enough people have noticed that. After the two months following Sept. 11th we’d overthrown the Taliban government and after three months we had expelled al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan. And Gen. Petraeus said back in May that al Qaeda no longer even operates in Afghanistan. So why are we there?

We are not safer because we sent 100,000 of our young men and women across the ocean to a place 8000 miles away. You know the Constitution doesn’t even contemplate a standing Army, much less an Army standing in Kabul.

Continue reading »

There was a definite method to BushCo's madness: Namely, hire subcontractors to evade the laws that prevent the DoD and the CIA from taking part in torture and assassination. From The Nation:

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help run a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater's involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so "compartmentalized" that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence.

Sure sounds like Cheney's still got his moles deep inside, doesn't it?

The White House did not return calls or email messages seeking comment for this story. Capt. John Kirby, the spokesperson for Adm. Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Nation, "We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature." A defense official, on background, specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. "We don't have any contracts to do that work for us. We don't contract that kind of work out, period," the official said. "There has not been, and is not now, contracts between JSOC and that organization for these types of services." The previously unreported program, the military intelligence source said, is distinct from the CIA assassination program that the agency's director, Leon Panetta, announced he had canceled in June 2009.

"This is a parallel operation to the CIA," said the source. "They are two separate beasts." The program puts Blackwater at the epicenter of a US military operation within the borders of a nation against which the United States has not declared war--knowledge that could further strain the already tense relations between the United States and Pakistan. In 2006, the United States and Pakistan struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. Officially, the United States is not supposed to have any active military operations in the country.

Blackwater, which recently changed its name to Xe Services and US Training Center, denies the company is operating in Pakistan. "Xe Services has only one employee in Pakistan performing construction oversight for the U.S. Government," Blackwater spokesperson Mark Corallo said in a statement to The Nation, adding that the company has "no other operations of any kind in Pakistan."

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source's claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC, the premier counterterrorism and covert operations force within the military. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement, the former executive said, allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces who now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan. The former executive spoke on condition of anonymity.

His account and that of the military intelligence source were borne out by a US military source who has knowledge of Special Forces actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan. When asked about Blackwater's covert work for JSOC in Pakistan, this source, who also asked for anonymity, told The Nation, "From my information that I have, that is absolutely correct," adding, "There's no question that's occurring."

ABC's Brian Ross has a history of bizarre "scoops" (like this one, when he announced that Hillary Clinton had indeed been in the White House the day Monica went down on her knees). And yet, ABC News is still proud to have him as their chief investigative correspondent, for some odd reason.

Now he overreaches on yet another story, this one claiming Nidal Malik Hasan attempted to contact al Qaeda. You heard it all over the news, right? Via Gawker:

ABC News' Brian Ross has a breathtaking record of recklessly inaccurate, overhyped stories that don't live up to the headline. His scoop yesterday about Nidal Malik Hasan's "attempt to reach out to al Qaeda" was one of them.

Ross' report yesterday that Hasan had attempted to "make contact with people associated with al Qaeda" took over the internet yesterday and sparked a furious round of speculation that Hasan's attack was part of an Islamic terrorist plot. The headline, "Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda," said it all. The far more mundane truth emerged today in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post: Hasan had communicated via e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric living in Yemen who formerly served as the imam of a mosque Hasan had attended in Virginia. What did they talk about? From the Washington Post:

The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to the law enforcement official. Investigators said Hasan's e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.

We were confused this morning, because Ross had clearly reported that Hasan had made contact with "people associated with Al Qaeda," and the only contacts that other reporters were confirming were with al-Awlaki, who is, as far as we know, a single person. We called Ross and asked him if there were more "people." No, he told us, his initial report was only in reference to al-Awlaki.

"That's how it was initially described to me by my sources," he says. "Given what they told me, that's all I could say. It's a strange use of the word 'people.' But when pinned down, my sources said it's just al-Awlaki."

A strange use, indeed. How about false, too? Especially because Ross' original story did, in fact, report that al-Awliki was among the "people" Hasan was suspected of having contacted. So he reported that Hasan contacted more than one person associated with al Qaeda, and then named one person that he was suspected of contacting. What he apparently didn't bother to do was "pin his sources down" on exactly what they were saying. The result was a clear suggestion that Hasan had tried to communicate with the al Qaeda network on more than one occasion.

So did he? Al-Awlaki is routinely described by the FBI and others as an al Qaeda supporter, and a fiery inciter of violence against infidels. And he was the imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Hasan. But while it's clear that Al-Awlaki is a bad guy, what's not clear is whether he's simply a propagandist or someone who actually operates as a part of al Qaeda. It's one thing for Hasan to have sent e-mails to someone who vocally supports al Qaeda, and quite another for him to have sent e-mails to al Qaeda itself, or to operatives actively involved in trying to kill people. Ross told us that, according to his sources, "Al-Awlaki is considered a recruiter," which is how he justified invoking the name of the terrorist network. We'll defer to him on that point.

But without knowing what the e-mails are about, can it really be known that Hasan's communications were "attempts to reach out"? The FBI didn't consider them as such. Ross didn't know the contents of the e-mails when he described them that way, but felt perfectly justified in doing so based solely on the knowledge that Hasan had sent the e-mails.

We asked Ross if he had tried to contact Al-Awlaki in reporting the story:

"Yes."

So you reached out to al Qaeda, then?

"To al Qaeda? No. I reached out to him. Oh. I see what you're saying."

Look, we know most of the alleged Al Qaeda detainees are innocent, with far too many of them victims of horrifying tactics like the ones reported in this Raw Story article. Will there ever be justice for them, or will President Obama continue to turn a blind eye to the Bush torture policies? Because with recent reports of a known rendition plane in Birmingham, England, I have to wonder if those policies are still in place:

The CIA relied on intelligence based on torture in prisons in Uzbekistan, a place where widespread torture practices include raping suspects with broken bottles and boiling them alive, says a former British ambassador to the central Asian country.

Craig Murray, the rector of the University of Dundee in Scotland and until 2004 the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the CIA not only relied on confessions gleaned through extreme torture, it sent terror war suspects to Uzbekistan as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

"I'm talking of people being raped with broken bottles," he said at a lecture late last month that was re-broadcast by the Real News Network. "I'm talking of people having their children tortured in front of them until they sign a confession. I'm talking of people being boiled alive. And the intelligence from these torture sessions was being received by the CIA, and was being passed on."

Human rights groups have long been raising the alarm about the legal system in Uzbekistan. In 2007, Human Rights Watch declared that torture is "endemic" to the country's justice system.

Murray said he only realized after his stint as ambassador that the CIA was sending people to be tortured in Uzbekistan, a country he describes as a "totalitarian" state that has never moved on from its communist era, when it was a part of the Soviet Union.

Suspects in Uzbekistan's gulags "were being told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they'd been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes."

"I was absolutely stunned -- it changed my whole world view in an instant -- to be told that London knew [the intelligence] coming from torture, that it was not illegal because our legal advisers had decided that under the United Nations convention against torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture as long as we didn't do the torture ourselves," Murray said.

No Comment: CIA efforts to keep torture secrets suffer a key loss in British high court.

Amygdala: An epic tour of Afghanistan, part 1.

We Are Respectable Negroes: Crack, Limbaugh and Hitler.

Alicublog: Right-bloggers defend Rush with an NFL boycott.

The Hunting of the Snark: More Logic Fail by McArdle.

Guest post by Batocchio. BG takes over for Mike tomorrow; send tips to bluegalsblog AT gmail

All wars depress me, but this Afghanistan one in particular makes me want to scream. Why are we there? Theoretically, to hunt down Osama bin Laden and stop al Qaeda from using it as a base. But is al Qaeda still there? Is that likely to work? Is it even possible? And if it is possible, is it worth the cost?

Nice to see a high-ranking Democrat asking these questions, too:

The veteran chairman of the House Appropriations Committee posed a series of tough questions Thursday to his colleagues and the Obama administration about the wisdom of further U.S. engagement in that war-torn country.

Rep. David R. Obey , D-Wis., in a statement expressed significant skepticism about the prospects for success of any major effort to stabilize the country, either through additional U.S. troops or by a concerted effort to train more Afghan troops and improve the country’s governance and economy.

“The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightning rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail,” Obey said of one option President Obama is weighing.

“If any adjustment is made in U.S. troop levels, it would be much better if those troops were focused on the job of training Afghani troops and police to take on the job of securing the population and maintaining law and order,” he said. “But even there, we have to ask what is achievable. My understanding is that there have never been more than about 90,000 troops under the sway of the central government. Now we are told that the goal is to train up to 400,000 soldiers and police personnel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that is a realistic and achievable goal.”

As for a policy bent on counter-insurgency and nation-building, Obey said, “We should be asking not what policy is theoretically the most intellectually coherent, but which policy is actually achievable given the only tools we have in the region; the Afghani and Pakistani governments. Is there sufficient leadership, popular support, and political will, not in the United States but in Afghanistan, necessary for effective governance to take hold? “

Equally important, he said, “Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90 percent illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?”

Politics in the Zeros: Populist Party Platform, 1892 (It could have been written for today)

Liberal Values: Nuclear engineer at Cern Lab arrested for alleged ties to al Qaeda

Alas, a blog: Every time a racist criticizes the president, someone cries, "racism."

Seeing the Forest: Modern Governing

AfterDowningStreet: Rep. Obey joins us idiot liberals

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: NYT out of ideas...Coffee talk...The Corner in a corner...Conservative gullibility...Bad faith and sloth...Politico Fail...Beachwood Reporter...Anatomy of a column...WaPo partisan goldmine...World Nut Daily...

There's been a Condi Rice sighting, everybody! And she brings good news with her. She says that we'll get hit with another terrorist attack if we leave Afghanistan.

In a new interview with Fortune Magazine, Rice offered extremely sharp criticism of the idea of withdrawal and painted the consequences of this course of action with an almost Cheneyesque bluntness.

"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."

As the Washington Post reported Monday, Obama is rethinking all aspects of the U.S. strategy in the Afghanistan in light of the disputed presidential election, an increase in U.S. casualties and waning public support here in America.

In the interview, Rice did acknowledge the recent election as a setback. But she argued that our own experience with democracy proved that it takes time to get things right: "Our democracy wasn't so perfect at the beginning either," she said, citing her own family's experience in the pre-Civil Rights era.

This comes from the woman who ignored the NSA memos about Osama Bin Laden which warned her that terrorists might fly planes into buildings. This comes from the woman who lied about those nasty aluminum tubes and said: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Let's continue to follow her down the road paved of blood.

Blue America is just beginning our campaign against the Afghanistan war with our new action titled "No Means No!" We are slowing bringing in other partners to join in before we amp it up....

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (65)

PLAYS: (105)

September 21, 2009 C-SPAN

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (63)

PLAYS: (205)

September 15, 2009 News Corp

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1612)

PLAYS: (1235)

It's one thing for the Bernie Sanderses and Russ Feingolds to openly question the mission in Afghanistan. It's quite another for Dianne Feinstein to do so.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

Feinstein is actually more charitable about the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, who said this week that there are no signs of major Al Qaeda anywhere in the country.

But as far as the wariness of the viability of Constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, you need only look to their recent election, into which the opposition leader is now seeking a criminal investigation. He has accused Hamid Karzai of treason and "state-engineered fraud". Despite this, Karzai will probably win election on the first ballot, and a vote that has been horribly compromised will be made official. We saw in Iran how this can lead to violence and chaos, and Afghanistan is not nearly as stable. Without a viable partner in the government, as Feinstein says we cannot expect an endless commitment. Yet because Karzai is Pashtun the US will likely back him in this fight, alienating the other ethnic groups in the region. Kalashnikovs are flying off the shelves in the Tajik areas. Civil war is not an unlikely scenario at this point.

This further limits the mission, away from state-building and toward dealing with the elements in the country willing to deal. Otherwise we set ourselves up for a decade-long slog that will only end with more dead and more treasure squandered, to little effect. And yes, as Sen. Feinstein says, that process should have an end date.

(h/t Heather)