Some brief thoughts for you on President Obama's speech on Afghanistan. These are a continuation, really. If you've been reading me for a while, (or you listened to me on Car Concerns on Tuesday) then you should be having these same thoughts for yourself.

Consider this excerpt.

"As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

"Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."

Two points on this section. First, Al Qaeda has always considered our center of gravity to be our economy. If our economy can be upset by making us fight an asymmetric war, then America can be defeated. We were already on our way to upset and what the sub-prime mortgage and derivative melt down was accellerate the proc ess.

Second, we continue to be willing to invest our money into this effort, but not our treasure. Money is not the same thing as our treasure. The American public is willing to remain silent so long as they do not personally have to involve their family members in this fight. So long as the fight is confined to the 1% of the population willing to volunteer for the military and the mercenaries who will fight purely for money, no outcry will be forthcoming.

Make no mistake, there are at least as many contractors in Afghanistan as there are soldiers.

The number of troops being sent is not enough. We need 600,000.  My analogy impression of what we are doing is this.

We are trying to create a river walk along a river for a distance of 5 miles about 200 yards at a time. The troops we send are the equivalent of erecting a temporary barrier to hold the water back so you can emplace the stone at the water's edge and pour the pavement. Then you lower the barrer on the section you just finished and repeat the process for the next section. That will take a very long time.

In other words, we will send in troops to an area to protect the local population while local government is firmly established and Afghan police and army personnel are trained to be self sufficient. Once one area is secure, you move on to the next area.

This would be a much different discussion today if, as part of his speeech last night, President Obama had announced the resumption of a Lottery Draft and the weaning of ourselves from contractors.

In short, what I wrote about Iraq in my book in 2006 applies to Afghanistan today.

Here's a link to the text of President Obama's speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.text.html?pagewanted=1&ref=asia