A lot of people (like Lindy above) seem to have convinced themselves that the same number of troops we put in Iraq, using the exact same techniques, could somehow have brought peace and freedom to Afghanistan. This doesn't even make sense.

What would be different? What methods would 150,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is far more rugged and primitive than Iraq, have used to accomplish what they have not been able to accomplish in Iraq, which at least has a baseline of modernism, if not democracy?

Fact is, we would still be there today anyway, and the number of dead troops would probably be in the same ballpark.

Add to your calculation the fact that if he were not in Iraq, Afghanistan would be the only direction the Left could attack Bush on war policy. You really think the press would have been this quiet about it this long under those circumstances? A lot of this is politics, not a consistent or even principled position on war.

I stand by my position that retreat in Iraq will be followed by inevitable retreat in Afghanistan, and eventually, everywhere else our troops might be facing this enemy. After those two nations burn in our wake, under what circumstances would any other nation, like Sudan or others, call on our military for help?