...

It is both a relief as well as depressing that at least part of the foreign policy commentariat seems to have finally come to conclusions that many laypeople have settled upon for some time.

One criticism, perhaps underserved, for I haven't read the report; I see the word "Pakistan" missing from this piece. Our policy in Afghanistan is part and parcel of American policy vis a vis Pakistan. What we decide to do in Afghanistan can't be considered without also knowing what the longer term plan is for Pakistan, that is, unless it is also intended to be a 'drone target practice' space for the foreseeable future.

I agree with all of your arguments, and have felt this way for some time, but I am still uncomfortable with some of the implications of vacating Afghanistan, in that it abandons OBL and others to their vacation retreat yet untouched. What, if any, corollary policy emerges for Pakistan in your framework? I ask in all seriousness, because in my simpleminded opinion, the 'war' we have waged has had one (of many) major goals unfulfilled: "Osama's head on a stick", as Cofer Black would have put it. Is this something we are willing to abandon entirely as part of your recommendations? Do I think we need to 'nation build' in afghanistan to achieve this? No. But there remains the question about what to do about the tribal areas and the existing sanctuary it provides to Al Q and others. No 'solution' to Afghanistan yet proposed really addresses this, as far as I've seen.

God, I'm almost sounding like Marty Martel here. But it is a question maybe worth asking.

I still find it hard to believe that people still think that any sort of 'victory' can be achieved through this war in Afghanistan. From the corrupt Karzai government, problems with the Pakistanis, and the fact that the tribal layout of Afghanistan doesn't lend much for a true consolidated democracy, throwing more troops and money at this conflict just seems like the completely wrong idea. As you put it, "The war in Afghanistan has become a fool's errand that is neither essential to U.S. national security nor likely to produce a satisfactory outcome."

Without bases in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is still operating out of places like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, does invading all of these countries to protect ourselves from Al Qaeda sound like a good plan? The best way to reduce the effectiveness of Al Qaeda and their influence is to take our troops out of these Muslim countries, and stop this completely flawed interventionist foreign policy, which is just adding recruit after recruit to their cause.

The war in Afghanistan as it currently stands, is not in fact a fool's errand. It is currently serving its purpose admirably; it is preventing Obama from being smeared as a pacifist who is unwilling to defend the country from terrorists (assuming of course expending the lives of countless Americans on the other side of the world to no end and at a huge expense constitutes defending America, but this is of course beside the point).

I realize Mr. Walt is an avowed foreign policy realist (except on issues regarding Israel and the Palestinians, where he magically develops a conscience), but what of our moral obligation to Afghanistan? We invaded this country and overturned a government that, by all accounts, was brutal and oppressive even by the low standards of the middle east. In so doing, we have enlisted the help of thousands of Afghan citizens, many of them women. We also killed thousands of civilians in the name of a promised better future for the country. Now, because "intellectuals" have decided such a future is too hard to achieve and doesn't satisfy our narrow strategic objectives, we're supposed to abandon these people? How awful.

You'd think that a country wedged in by 3 powers, Russia, China and India, would not need a US presence at all.

Are you kidding? The Republicans wouldn't tire of smearing Obama even if all our wars ended and our prisons, both onshore and offshore, were full. The trouble is, Obama believes in escalation (er, surge in today's parlance).

Afghanistan is a fool's errand, no doubt, especially since the tribal areas in Pakistan have offered OBL, Mullah Omar and their retinue safe harbor since 2002. We lost the battle to keep the Taliban out while we were 'distracted' by our Iraq adventure. Like a bad weed, they have come back, moving into areas in the North - which many thought were hostile to them - even as we try to marshall the effort to drive them out of their traditional bases in the South. Our efforts will soon resemble a whack-a-mole game.

Even if we were able to assign a US military presence to each and every hamlet and burg in Afghanistan, it would not change the fact that OBL remains comfortably situated in his hideout in Pakistan - probably laughing with his buddies in the Pakistani ISI - enjoying the spectacle of the US and its allies playing our part in the theater he established for us. And, if by some chance we could somehow disturb his peace there, he could still launch strikes against us through his subsidiaries in Yemen, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and countless other locations.

Our mission in Afghanistan should have ended when we failed to capture or kill Osama at Tora Bora. Once he escaped to the safety of Pakistan, the chance was lost. A new strategy has been in order for a long time. Study Groups can analyze until hell freezes, but we need serious leadership not interested soley in the impact a policy might have on the next election.

We really still need to figure out how we might have - in 2001 - prevented 19 or 20 foriegn nationals (with no particular reason for being here) from coming into our country, living here in relative obscurity for months, enrolling in flight schools, all while arousing absolutely no suspicion, and while they planned to carry out the largest terrorist attack in history against us. And, how they did all this while every one of our sophisticated "intelligence" agencies were asleep at the gate.

at speaking to your critics. And in this case, your critic's conduct and writing means he deserves it.

Terry McDermott correctly reports that KSM mainly operated from an apartment in Karachi. That brings us to Pakistan.

Ever since Pakistan’s Musharraf was forced to join US against Taliban in 2001, US government and news media has intentionally whitewashed Pakistan’s role in 9/11 attacks.

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in March, 2004 that ’Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban’. UN report on Bhutto killing confirmed this fact when it stated that ‘Pakistani Army organized Taliban and installed Taliban government in Afghanistan in 1996’.

So in a way, Pakistani government was in charge of Afghanistan when 9/11 attacks were carried out and hence Pakistani government was responsible for those attacks.

Nobody forced it but Pakistan’s democratic government of Benazir Bhutto chose of its own free will, to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996.

Pakistani ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad had asked Omar Sheikh (the kidnapper of Daniel Pearl) to send $100,000 from a Dubai bank account to Mohammed Atta (the lead 9/11 hijacker) one year before those attacks. Mohammad Atta used that $100,000 for flight training, living expenses and to purchase flight tickets on the day of 9/11 attacks in US and returned unspent $25,000 back to same Dubai account. Musharraf was forced to retire ISI director General Mahmud Ahmad after Wall Street Journal exposed General Ahmad as the chief financier of 9/11 attacks.

Pakistani ISI was heavily involved in planning, financing and facilitating of 9/11 attacks as corroborated by former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham.

As Afghan President Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks, “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“

Even Afghanistan’s national security advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta has asked the same question in a Washington Post article on 8/23/2010: “While we are losing dozens of men and women to terrorist attacks every day, the terrorists’ main mentor (Pakistan) continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance. How is this fundamental contradiction justified? Despite facing a growing domestic terror threat, Pakistan “continues to provide sanctuary and support to the Quetta Shura, the Haqqani network, the Hekmatyar group and Al Qaeda. Dismantling the terrorist infrastructure “requires confronting the state of Pakistan that still sees terrorism as a strategic asset and foreign policy tool”.

Pakistan will definitely assure the return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan to establish its own writ if and when US departs. Al Qaeda WILL return with the establishment of Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

Does US have will power and the resources to invade and occupy Pakistan for a long time after 10 years of war in Afghanistan?

I think the report has some good points and a few poorly thought out points. A few points:
We DEFINITELY need to engage Pakistan more. I believe this is the key. However, Pakistan's first and foremost concern is its security and existence. I believe we can extract leverage from them to motivate the government and the ISI to cooperate by preying on their fears of India and national survival. With strong pressure from the State Department and the absolute cancellation of US aid, Pakistan will have no choice but to cooperate. Our money currently goes to arm the military against an imaginary war with India (or into the ISI's pockets). Cut that off, and Pakistan has no friends. They will never side with the pro-al Qaeda forces as it will assuredly mean their own destruction. As long as we keep filling the pockets of the ISI, we will never solve the problem. I think its analagous to Israel--we stop propping up Israel with aid, they WILL adopt a two state solution. It's a matter of survival vs. annihilation.

Ceding the southern areas of Afghanistan is insane. The study naively concludes that the Taliban and al Qaeda are not aligned. Recent events in Kunduz and the eastern provinces show a definitely alignment of Taliban and al Qaeda interests. The major chokepoint in Afghanistan is through Khandhar and Helmand, which are STILL being neglected. Give those areas up (even more) and the effort is cooked.

I completely agree that decentralization of the archaic Soviet style government is critical. Sack Karzai, and hold provincial elections. Kabul's function should only be to promote hegemony betwen the provinces. Karzai, while perhaps not corrupt himself, is seen, and is allied with, too many corrupt people. We have to empower the local populace to fight the Taliban. This cant be done from Kabul.

A prime example of the "we are losing" school of journalism.

...Energy security: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM

Mr. Walt, I read Foust's arguments and they hardly seemed like rants to me.

The report seemed to suggest that the fighting is done to a large degree on basis of ethnicity between Pashtuns and the Tajiks and Uzbeks. This may have some truth to it in parts of the nation but the report seems unable to realize that there are both Tajik and Uzbek Islamist militants that are not fighting the Taliban*.

Additionally the report states that previous attempts to create a centralized authority have failed. What of the Taliban in the late 90s? They may not have been able to force every warlord to give up their weapons and men but they certainly controlled all but a small area of Afghanistan and had 9/11 not occurred they very well might have succeeded in uniting all of the nation.

It seems to me that the report is definitely not above criticism.

* Such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan which, while not the most powerful, is rather dangerous and openly allied to Al Qaeda.