I don’t think so. Obama asked for a strategic review upon taking office, and the strategy and tactics grew out of that. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

And, again, if the Bush team thought it was such a great idea, why didn’t they do something about it? After all, Bush was president and all.

Above is a bit garbled! Could you clarify?

Point being, an “Iraq style Surge” would be hard considering all the extenuating circumstances that produced the positive – if possibly fleeting results – of reducing violence. Though not eliminating violence and conflict. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying each month even after the “success” of the Surge and the several other factors.

“Also: How do we convince Moqtada al-Sadr to get the Taliban to disarm, and the Sunni Iraq tribes to convince less cohesive tribal factions in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda, and how do we benefit from prior ethnic/sectarian cleansing establishing demarcations?”

Above is a bit garbled! Could you clarify?

Also, did you read that ABC/BBC poll I posted earlier? The Afgha public opinion environment for US/UK/Nato operations is much more positive than Iraq. The Taliban have virtually no support – 6/7%.

On top of that, of course, the Pakistani govt and army has been taking to the Taliban for 9 months now. The nabbing of the Taliban 21C in conjunction with CIA very telling for the Taliban’s future prospects?

PS: If the Bush admin recommended a surge in Afghanistan, why didn’t the Bush admin…surge in Afghanistan?

Also: How do we convince Moqtada al-Sadr to get the Taliban to disarm, and the Sunni Iraq tribes to convince less cohesive tribal factions in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda, and how do we benefit from prior ethnic/sectarian cleansing establishing demarcations?

Eric, it would be helpful if you could be clear about your view on this question:

Should the Obama Admin be conducting a Bush admin recommended style Iraq “surge” in Afghanistan or not?

In saying “one issue” I was assuming that the economy will have improved by 2012.

On the upside, if the Bush/Obama surge and Nato put the Taleban to rout which seems to be increasingly on the cards, and if the Iranian regime falls to the green movement which is not out of the question then O’s national credentials will be considerably enhanced and consequently Americans may feel more sanguine about the trial.

However, I don’t think that “proves” that this decision was of the epic proportions you claimed, or that it threatens to take down a Presidency.

The “proof of the Congress pudding” was not in reference to how many seats, if any, the Dems might lose in the election, but whether the Dems in Congress will allow the trials to take place in the US at all – long before the election!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/01/22/ST2010012203176.html

I’m not sure if this changes things materially but:

1. He was not the target (although intel put him in the car at the time, and thus in lethal harm’s way)
2. The al-Qaeda Op being targeted was a high ranking member
3. It was 2002 and there was a lot more leeway given

Still, in terms of establishing a legal principle, that case was problematic.

One of thousands, literally.

Wasn’t there polling done?

Why yes, there was. And that issue did not appear anywhere near the top in terms of importance placed by voters.

Whatever, the proof will be in the Congress pudding.

Really? If the Dems lose seats, that will prove that it was because of the decision to try KSM in a civilian court?

Are you familiar with logical fallacies?