Trouble in Obama-land?

Paul Craig Roberts harshes on the Obama administration's caving on health care reform and the Afghan war. Without explicitly saying it, Roberts reinforces my position that issues like health reform present a zero-sum game: someone must lose. Unfortunately Obama and the Democrats refuse to make either the health insurers or the war industry lose. That leaves only their own supporters to bear the loss. Kos points out why this is a big problem. IMHO the major problem is refusing to take on conservatives on their ideology.

UPDATE: Andrew Bacevich chimes in:

"What Afghanistan tells us is that rather than changing Washington, Obama has become its captive. The president has succumbed to the twin illusions that have taken the political class by storm in recent months. The first illusion, reflecting a self-serving interpretation of the origins of 9/11, is that events in Afghanistan are crucial to the safety and well-being of the American people. The second illusion, the product of a self-serving interpretation of the Iraq War, is that the U.S. possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to guide Afghanistan out of darkness and into the light."

Finish the job

How many times have I heard and read that the U.S. is going to "Finish the job," or "Win the war" in Afghanistan? But what does that mean? Does it mean eradicating Afghanistan of the Taliban? Why would anyone think that is possible? The Taliban are a subset of the 40 million Pashtun who live in the area. Do we plan to kill them all, or just "pacify" them forever? Nation building is one thing, but undertaking to change the character of an entire, dirt-poor and uneducated populace is hubris and conceit on steroids. In the end, there will not be, cannot be, "victory" in Afghanistan.

UPDATE: As of October 2008 officials were saying that the Taliban had severed all ties with al Qaeda.

Bombs by Christmas

What a lovely gift of lead we'll be giving to the Afghans! War makes peace!