Obama's Afghan plan incoherent and dangerous

There has been a certain amount of criticism, but I'm mostly fascinated at just how supinely most Americans are responding to President Obama's "strategy" for Afghanistan. I suspect a certain degree of resignation is involved. We've become all too accustomed to the idea that the president can do whatever he damn well pleases, so few Americans bother complaining. I think very few people -- maybe a David Brooks, but he has an almost unblemished track record of being wrong, especially on foreign affairs -- actually believe this or any other likely strategy will "win" in Afghanistan or even have any notion of what "winning" would mean.

We probably won't see widespread protest until there's widespread coverage of U.S. futility, butAfghanistan is much larger and more mountainous than Iraq, therefore more difficult to cover (I'm re-reading Robert Kaplan's "Soldiers of God," about the mujahidin driving out the Soviets, which makes poignant poiints about how difficult it was then to do journalism.)

Well, the Register's editorial makes the appropriate points and suggests immediate demilitarization and a focus on al-Qaida rather than the Taliban. Will anybody pay ettentio?