Thank you for this. I was beginning to feel I was the only commenter on TPM that sees this escalation as a horrible precedent.

We've got a very vocal contignent of liberals on this site making all sorts of disingenuous arguments in favor of escalation. It's all too reminiscent of the fear-mongering that went on before we went whole hog on the debacle in Iraq.

We have no strategic interests in central Asia, and we face no serious threats from that region. A question the fearmongers never address: so what if the Taliban gets a small amount of nuclear material? They have no ability to weaponize it, and even in the ridiculous "Doomsday Scenario," (extremists gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear aresenal) does anyone think they are really crazy enough to attempt a nuclear strike on America? They's be obliterated in an instant. The Taliban desires control over the Pashtun region, not the destruction of America, as Matthew Hoh noted in his resignation from the foreign service.

I frankly don't care if Pakistan gets taken over by its military for the fifth or sixth time in its 60-year history, if the civilian government can't maintain security. Put more charitably, let's provide Pakistan with the aid necessary to push these extremists back into regions where they become politically irrelevant. This is simply not our fight, and our presence is only creating more extremism.

Thanks, war and the health insurance premium extortion bill have turned me green.

There have been so many recent posts on Afghanistan that anyone wishing to express an opinion on any side of this issue probably sees that multitude as akin to a game of whac-a-mole. As others have noted, I've already described my own reasons for concluding that withdrawing prematurely from Afghanistan - i.e. before we could be adequately replace by indigenous forces - would be a profoundly dangerous misstep. I won't repeat them here, because that would probably provoke a repetition of arguments made many times previously, with no apparent resolution. More important, what I conclude hardly matters in comparison with what President Obama concludes when he decides on the next step in our Afghanistan effort. It is thought likely to involve a troop increase, although less than General McChrystal has requested. I believe the decision will be made based on what the President believes is the nation's best interest, in light of all the evidence and perspectives he can bring to bear on the subject.

The one new point I'd like to make relates to Matthew Hoh, the dissenter. As far as I can tell, no-one in authority has suggested anything other than that Mr. Hoh is a good person, acting honorably to promote a view he too sincerely believes to be in our best interest. His superiors, including Richard Holbrooke, have commended him while disagreeing with his assessment.

What I find striking about this is the contrast with the Bush Administration, which suffered its share of dissenters and resignations. Almost invariably, these were met with attempts to vilify the dissenters - to destroy their reputation and to imply not that the Administration thought their positions wrong, but rather that they were bad people.

One could argue, I suppose, that the civil and respectful tone applied now to Mr. Hoh is politically savvy. Perhaps, but it was apparently politically savvy a few years back to attempt to demolish dissenters by all available weapons of character association, including charges of corruption, dishonesty, and implications that honorable actions were a subterfuge masking self interest.

Mr. Hoh doesn't deserve that kind of accusatory assault. He is honorable. So is the President and his advisors. We should all, I believe, respect the model we see here by which we can disagree with another's ideas without attempting to demonize his or her character, honesty, intelligence, or reputation.