Do you not realize how your advocacy of continued US involvement in Afghanistan ironically resembles the Bush administrations's main justification for invading Iraq? In both cases a highly speculative future possible evil is advanced as a justification for war now: in Iraq, it was the possibility that some day Saddam could have and use weapons of mass destruction; in Afghanistan, the possibility that US troops would be diverted to an invasion of Iran. But how likely is the latter? Extremely unlikely: this was a neo-conservative fantasy that had some traction in the Bush administration but has none whatsoever after the failure in Iraq. Iran is several times larger than Iraq and infinitely more sophisticated than Afghanistan. Do you really think that Obama is that crazy? You offer no evidence whatsoever for that proposition (and of course there is none), only your generalized conviction that the US must be involved in a war somewhere. Not very compelling.

Americans and Afghans are dying now, every day in Afghanistan. To say that this is a good thing because it averts an alternative evil that is in fact only remotely possible is unconscionable and just plain silly.

I know you're the eternal optimist, but please explain to me how you can conceive of Netanyahu ever agreeing to a just peace settlement. If he can successfully resist Obama's pressure for a minimal show of good faith--halting further settlements--what basis is there for hope that he will ever agree to a peace that of necessity will require not merely a halt to new settlements, but the extensive dismantling of existing settlements and the repatriation of tens of thousands of Israelis?