The End of the World
I linked this earlier in a comment, but for those who missed it, suicide bombers killed 60 people in Pakistan. Along those same lines, the Pentagon will be sending 12-15,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
The very serious people of both parties seem to have decided that to make up for the Iraq fiasco, we will double down in Afghanistan so we can win the "good" war against al Qaeda. This is not a McCain v. Obama thing since both seem to think sending more troops to Afghanistan and threatening Pakistan is fantastic foreign policy.
I don't mean to be a downer, but what exactly is our plan in Afghanistan? I'm all for fighting al Qaeda where it makes sense, but didn't we kind of screw the pooch when we chose to de-emphasize that war to go into Iraq. While nation building is a tricky business, there were arguably things we could've done in Afghanistan in 2002-03 to stabilize the place, but we missed that window. The Taliban and al Qaeda have had 5-6 years to build their bases in Pakistan and fighting Pakistan with its nukes is a helluva lot different than fighting Afghanistan (which hasn't exactly gone well).
I know it's considered bad form to ask our leaders what the PLAN is for a war, but other than killing more people and getting more of our people killed, what's the end-game plan for Afghanistan? Because while everyone seems to agree we must do something, I have yet to hear how what we're planning to do will actually solve the problem. And without some sort of exit strategy, I'm going to have to agree with the odd couple Chris Floyd and Pat Buchanan and say it sounds an awful lot like Vietnam, fighting off guerilla warriors being resupplied by a neighbor.