RA

I agree the President has responsibility. That responsibility begins when you first consider putting troops at risk. Just saying it does not make it happen, the "it" being exporting democracy, declaring victory, or tackling hard problems like Afghanistan, a can we have been kicking down the road for some time.

Elegant solutions are nice to talk about about but deceptive in that they propose simple solutions to complex problems. "Sealing" one of the earth's toughest borders, one across which the art of smuggling is exquisitely practiced is one. Controlling tribal lands is another. Which tribal areas are you proposing to control? Keep in mnd that they straddle the border. I have been hip deep in efforts to control populations when they straddle a border. It does not work unless you control or have the agreement of the governments that are supposed to control those borders. That might be "COIN 101"; COIN 601 comes in when you recognize the basics in 101 are not single solutions in and of themselves, neither are they always available for use. In our case regarding Afghanistan, COIN 601 says that there is little prospect of getting the Paks to fully control their half of the tribal lands when such controls have long been unacheived goals. By the same token, COIN 601 says that you are even less lilkely to muster the US will to expand cross border operations to the degree necessary to control the tribal lands on the Pak side of the border. And even if you did, you would be expanding the conflict beyond the sustainable.

As Ken likes to say, "win" is too elagant and clean a word to even consider applying to this situation.

Tom