To Save Afghanistan

President Obama will send additional forces into Afghanistan with no clear strategic guidance as to what they're supposed to accomplish, other than to secure the population and wait for further orders.

On the broad question of what America's interests are in Afghanistan, I think the Center for a New American Security has a pretty good take:

U.S. interests in Afghanistan may be summarized as “two no’s”: there must be no sanctuary for terrorists with global reach in Afghanistan, and there must be no broader regional meltdown. Securing these objectives requires helping the Afghans to build a sustainable system of governance that can adequately ensure security for the Afghan people...

But as Benjamin Friedman at CATO observes:

A stable Afghanistan is neither necessary to US security nor obviously possible at reasonable cost, as I have periodically written. It is not evident that Al Qaeda types would again find haven in Afghanistan should we go. But assuming that they would, there remains an alternative to trying to overcome Afghanistan’s anarchic history. We could attack only the remaining jihadists, their allies, and insurgents who will not settle for local power. That would require only a small U.S. ground presence, airstrikes and local allies.

While I think Friedman's a bit blithe about the possibility of an al Qaeda restoration inside Afghanistan (the border isn't exactly secure) he's surely right about what is necessary to beat them down.

Consider the recent reporting regarding the C.I.A. assessment of al Qaeda in Pakistan: the group's leadership cadre is "decimated." This done by air via remotely piloted drones based out of Pakistan, according to the loose-lipped Sen. Diane Feinstein.

Photo: Scouts from 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne), pull overwatch during Operation Destined Strike while 2nd Platoon, Able Company searches a village below the Chowkay Valley in Kunar Province, Afghanistan Aug. 22. www.army.mil