that the increased committment of troops and resources in Iraq (i.e. the surge) will work miracles there, while doing the same in Afghanistan isn't worth the trouble? All the more amazing when one considers that at least in the case of Afghanistan we had a good, valid, and truthfully expressed reason for our intervention, and the overwhelming support of the international community (vital for the success of the mission, by the way, a lesson apparently not learned in Iraq).

We will ultimately bring Osama bin Laden to justice when he has no more safe havens in which to hide, no more supporters to shelter him from our grasp. This involves a far more serious committment mainly in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Here's an article which sheds light on the continuing struggle in Afghanistan, which is a direct consequence of George Bush's misplaced priorities and incompetent leadership.

Afghanistan: A War That's Still Not Won

As this article points out, it’s painfully obvious that there are not nearly enough troops and resources committed to Afghanistan. Why not? Did George Bush surge in the wrong country?

Coalition forces are stretched thin, local Afghan police are non-existent, the central Afghan government remains weak and ineffective, Afghan farmers receive more aid from druglords than from anyone else, development projects are constantly hampered because the Taliban is resurgent, controlling roads and successfully intimidating the population into non-cooperation with coalition and afghan authorities…

Development can’t take place without adequate security and the support, confidence and cooperation of the population. And that's necessary to make bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan more and more dangerous for himself, and his capture or demise more and more likely.