The debate on Afghanistan

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 3:30 PM Share

If you want to keep up with the debate on Afghanistan, you should obviously be reading FP's AfPak Channel. But here are a few other items of special note:

1. Chairman of the JCS Admiral Mike Mullen thinks we need more troops and more time. Some key Senators are skeptical. To watch the actual hearings, go here.

2. A new CATO Institute report on how to get out.

3. An open letter from the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy on why Obama should rethink his Afghan "strategy." (Full disclosure: I'm one of the signatories).

4. What Sarah Palin and the guys who thought invading Iraq was a good idea think now. For some reason the phrase "caveat emptor" springs to mind.

5. Tom Englehardt is skeptical of benchmarks, but offers a long list of his own.

JEAN-PIERRE CLATOT/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CENTRAL ASIA, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, BUSH'S LEGACY, MILITARY, PAKISTAN, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

R.HOWE

2:26 PM ET

September 17, 2009

The Letter

Thanks for sharing your group's letter. I hope all your readers will send links to the letter to all their representatives in DC.

JANBEKSTER

10:57 PM ET

September 19, 2009

Number of Troops.

If one remembers correctly, the number of US deployed troops in Vietnam reached almost 500,000 at their peak. While the Soviet troops in Afghanistan reached 100,000 at their peak, in a country five times the size of Vietnam. If the Soviets failed to compensate for their client's weaknees with 100,000 troops, what are the US and NATO troops to achieve; with the current level of troops deployment, in compensating for their client's weakness?.

khairi janbek.paris/france