Entropy:

I think Nir Rosen's latest piece in Foreign Policy hits a lot of these points well.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/pos...mentspace=true
His focus is on drawing distinctions between Iraqi and Afghan surges, and explains:

Al Qaeda left Af for Pak several years ago, will never create training bases, etc., that are easily targeted, pr return to Af where they can be wiped out wholesale. He notes that they are probably more dangerous and destabilizing there.

He points out the lack of population centers/densities which is a fundamental difference/limitation in controlling populations.

No fan of the Taliban, he, nonetheless, accurately points out that they long ago foreswore allowing AQ into Af, have learned some lessons from the past, but remain Afghans, and members of a substantial minority (40%). They are not "foreign fighters" except for their sanctuaries in Pak.

Note the continuing refrain: Stop sending/spending money there. It is fueling conflict; we (and our money) are the center of gravity for everyone but US. Very destabilizing.

As one who has increasingly failed to understand the whole "money as a weapon" thing (from watching too many misfires), I, for one, long ago grew weary of Clear-Hold-Bribe, school building and anything else that creates irrelevant measurables that do not contribute to stability (and all too often achieves the opposite effect).

I end up in the War is War column, and scratch my head at what the rest of this stuff is.