What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

Is it too much to ask what we want our troops in Afghanistan to do?

And to ask how 60,000 American troops will win the war, when the anti-Iraq War side said that anything short of 2% of the population to be pacified is the minimum necessary to win? (Meaning close to 600,000 US troops for Afghanistan. I consistently argued we had enough troops to win in Iraq, and our apparent victory vindicates me. But war opponents are stuck with their arguments, aren't they?)

These are not incomprehensible queries, but basic questions to fighting a war.

I've asked what our objective is many times. Truth be told, my objectives for Afghanistan just aren't that high.

I even described a strategy for winning in Afghanistan.

Yet the Obama administration is plunging forward without an objective laid out. I think our objectives are still limited, but how are our objectives related to putting many more troops in Afghanistan at the end of risky supply lines?

But at least the question of what we expect our troops to do is being raised in the press as we begin the surge. See here and here.

While Afghanistan was an economy of force operation, the big question wasn't as important. But now that Afghanistan is assuming the primary focus of our military effort (because we've likely won in Iraq), the question is very important.

And if you think President Obama's supporters will support the Afghan campaign when the going gets tough, you simply aren't paying attention. The challenge is already happening.