Entertaining, but not logical.

I liked your style, and the DC cabbies in particular, who as we all know are not at all shy about expressing their views, and are at least as well prepared as most of the pundits in the media. The best part was that, of course, on Afghanistan, they were sharply divided! So I would like to read more from you, and that means I voted for you, and hope you will win. But here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, not deciding to send more troops until the corrupt electoral process in Afghanistan sorts itself out with some kind of credible democratic mandate IS decisiveness. Just a thought.

I take it that we need to confer with the stakeholders who have been largely ignored up to this point. Good idea. I can envision Obama sitting at a table with Afghans with credentials comparable to those who sit at the table in the White House. What do they see as possibilities for their country? Do they think their hopes and desires are attainable? Can they articulate their cultural differences in a way that lends credence to American "occupation"?

We have much to lose in Afghanistan but they have much more at stake.

Obama's faux pas was in declaring it a "war of necessity".

Some examples of "decisiveness" for the sake of decisiveness:

- Waking up on a frigid winter morning and declaring that "this is the day" you'll finally practice your diving, fully clothed, into the Potomac River. Seize the day. Go for it. No more debating about hypothermia or the cost-benefit equation of the act. Just do it.

- Walking up to a large, angry-looking musclebound man and just rearing back and letting him have one hard in the nose. You've wondered for a long time what would happen if you just let your impulses rule, and today you're just going to find out.

- Invading a country. Any country. Sending hundreds of thousands of other people's kids into a senseless battle that will end up killing a million innocent civilians. Sure, it's pointless, it's bloody, it's counterproductive and economy-breakingly expensive and probably illegal. But it's DECISIVE. And that's all that really matters when you have an adolescent's mindset.

People had eight years to learn that this word has ZERO worth if the decisions are not sensible ones. Some of you didn't. I find that very interesting - I had thought that the lower limit of non-chromosomally-compromised human intellect was a higher bar than that. Apparently though, it is possible not to get this concept after an eight year concentrated remedial program designed specifically to teach it. Just remarkable.

Ms. Khalil's "ask the cab driver" device was a clever one to drive home the contrast of this administration with the last one, who asked nobody but their cloistered inner circle of neocons and oil industry interests.

Unfortunately, her thesis seems to degenerate into this:

"But the United States' ability to lead is correlated with its ability to be decisive."

and

"The question remains: Does Obama have the audacity to decide?"

Ms. Khalil, for eight years the United States tried out the foreign-policy-by-uninformed-but-decisive-gut-reflex and it turned out to be just that: acid reflux from George W. Bush's dyspeptic gut -- colored with the black oil he had swallowed from his campaign donor constituency.

You have no evidence - none whatsoever - that the president thinks there is some "magic oracle" hiding under a rock somewhere in DC that will give him the definitive answer. It may look like that from your uninformed vantage point, since you are not privy to all the conversations he is having. Could it possibly be that he is gathering INFORMATION of every facet of the situation there, in order to make the best aggregate decision in the end? We've been at this for EIGHT LONG YEARS with no lasting positive results. Are you that enamored with the ADHD approach to foreign policy that you'd like to see another kneejerk move made JUST FOR THE SAKE OF APPEARING DECISIVE? I am SO tired of that word - "decisive" - it means ZILCH by itself. You have to get it RIGHT, not just quick. Do people still not get this simple concept? Why? Is it that hard to grasp?

It sounds like you would prefer he consulted the I Ching or some Ouija board just to "be done with it" for the sake of "being done with it". I bet you don't even pick out carpet or paint colors for your home with that level of blithe thoughtlessness.

My recommendation to you is to take your ADHD medication and sit back and try to be patient while the president aggregates information and perspectives on this seemingly intractable situation. No outside force has been able to "tame" this region in TWO THOUSAND YEARS. I think then that we can give the president a couple of months to see what new approaches might help.

Lydia,

The cab driver ploy will catch reader's interest. Your opinion piece grabbed my attention first with a mouse over. I think you could have turned the whole piece on its ear and contrasted the opinions of the cabbies with an outsider's perspective. How about a Russian cab driver?

Thanks for writing this.

You are awful. First instead of talking to DC cabbies how about talking to Malalai Joya or RAWA. The women of Afghanistan who have to suffer with the outcomes of our horrible destruction of their country.

The author writes "The outcome in Afghanistan will also affect Washington's standing vis a vis its international rival, Iran" - Iran is not our international rival they are the new poster child the US has decided to use to achieve hegemony in the region. Iran could have been a useful ally in Afghanistan in fact they were in the beginning.

The author adds "And once the United States commits itself to a cause and backs away from that commitment, as some have suggested we do in Afghanistan by scaling back our presence and constricting our goals, it is jeopardizing its ability to intervene in future conflicts should the need arise." Maybe that's a good thing. We need to quit intervening in so many conflicts. Oh and by the way we didn't intervene in Iraq or Afghanistan, we started them.

The author states "What is fundamentally at stake is the standing of the United States and its ability to lead the international community." I think the Afghans have a different opinion about what is fundamentally at stake in there country. Their lives and their children's lives. If all this is about is our "standing" and "ability to lead" then we need to get the bleep out yesterday. I think the DC cabbies would agree unless they too are some of the warlords we support.

This author should be ashamed. Middle east expert, I don't think so. Then again she is with the Council on Foreign Relations a bunch of warmongers if ever there was.

I beg to differ with MMCSORLEY; I think the device of the cabstand works rather well. For one thing, it jumps out of the usual circle of academics, journalists, and politicians to a group of people who have a particular connection to the issues in Afghanistan.

Moreover, I think that the key point is made quite clearly: no one has the answer. At some point, the President is going to have to roll the dice, based on the best information he can get at the time.

I've been reading Kenneth Pollack's A Path Out of the Desert, which also emphasizes the importance of taking a long view. One advantage to the long view that I don't think either Pollack or Ms. Khalil emphasize enough is that it reduces the importance of any one decision. There will be time to revisit the situation again, if, that is, we don't foreclose our options by pulling out.

The taxi cab trope did not work. To make a bad metaphor even worse, it was as jarring as a pot hole and as deflating as a flat tire for me. Though I imagine it was an attempt to provide a fresh angle on an oft-repeated op-ed topic, I found it be distracting gimmick instead -- one that provided neither a compelling structural unity nor a telling political perspective for the piece.

This is a shame because the piece was well-written and cogently argued in places. My sense is that this writer is capable of far more compelling work. To accomplish this end, I would gently recommend that she eschew rhetorical gimmicks and rely upon her persuasive argumentation skills instead.

This is another symptom of the poor state of what passes as punditry. The argument: just do something quick, Obama!-- sidesteps the real ethical, strategic, economic and political issues. It;s either wrong and ultimately self-defeating to invade, occupy, bomb and cripple another society or it isn't.
Even an Afghanistan full of so-called Taliban (aren't they really the "mujahadeen" so honored and funded by the Reaganites?) poses little significant threat to U.S. power or security. But the longer we stay there and mutilate their people and lands, the more devoted foes will spring up all over the world. People will resist brutal oppressors by any means available, and that's what the U.S. was in Vietnam, and that's what it is now in S. East Asia.

tepid and contradictory piece, nice angle on DC cabbies but her political bias bled through and then she hit a fungo at the end , middle of the pack piece.

If you want a real solution to Afghanistan, here it is.

Deport all 10-20 million illegal aliens living in the USA to Afghanistan. Give it 10 years, and Afghanistan will look like Mexico.

Problem(s) solved.

Ms Khalil, I am "grading" this competition with two simple standards: Did I learn something/was something presented in a unique or fresh manner? Would I read this person's writing again based on their current piece? So far, only one other pundit has garned two "yes" answers, you are the second. I am staying away from judging your views, because that is not waht this is about. Well done. You were interesting, presented this in a novel manner, and I will definitely read your next piece.

Bland. If this was supposed to be amusing, it missed the boat. You might want to get out of the observer/commentator mode and write about something that is close to your heart, something you know about.

Right on the button, Lydia. In addition to cabbies, America's presidents need to listen to their heroes and super-heroes. "With great power comes great responsibility", said Spider-Man. Did W. listen? "When you come to a fork in the road, take it", said Yogi Berra. Is O. listening?

You've made your point well. I would add that there is no walking away from nation-building this time around. But the US cannot do it by herself. The sooner the UN is roped in, and in particular the Islamic nations, into this effort, the greater the chances of succeeding.

Here, Ldia, I admit it. I didn't make the cut and you did.

But since you have taken this anti-Obama tact, I'll show you what I wrote. Ain't pro, ain't con. But I didn't get my ideas from cabbies!
=====================================
Overbearing brainpower is our new Achilles Heel

President Obama has been garnering new worldwide friendships from many who might otherwise turn their heads, but here at home we are rudderless. Our new president is in perpetual motion, steering his way clear of the minefields placed on his cerebral itinerary by a harsh congress, the irate right, and the irascible left. But he hasn't yet mastered the idea that effective political action comes not from defying the gravity but by using it, with centrifugal force. This off-of-center group - this dirty bomb of the peripheral body politic - used to be silenced by calming presidential discourse of the middle ground found somewhere near Peoria. Reagan was a master of it. But it disappeared from our national discourse years ago.

Today, our new president struggles to touch conflict so as to avoid it. He takes regular excursions to the edges to mollify the un-pacified. But that doesn’t work.

George W Bush was a master at going to conflict. The force generated from the fall of the Twin Towers launched Bush into Iraq. Afghanistan was just a pass-through. Conflict is in Bush’s DNA; he understood how to use that force. And, initially, Americans were mesmerized by it.

As Bush and his master of sling shot politics, Dick Cheney, used every available dupe to move our forces over there, the press stood in awe of the military, which sought to embed them both physically and in spirit.

Anyone who has ever denigrated Bush’s character should rethink the craftsmanship with which he convinced the public how best to follow him to the periphery of political reality. Christianity-good; Islam-bad. Saddam Hussein - big spoke from the axis of evil. There isn’t much to think about, is there?

Such forces are hardly elements of Obama's physics. Yet the president would be better served to study the advantages of that type of leadership, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

If, as I suspect, he really wants to change from the past, he should first get surgery on his Achilles Heel.

George Bush’s distracted incursion into Iraq turned world opinion against us. No less troublesome now is Obama's incursion into some sort of clever world setting where we muscle our creativity to death with our grey matter. How boring – and dangerous.

When Obama accepts real power, he’ll stop the touching and start the real fight for his ideas.

Give me a break. Last week it was "here are my far-reaching conclusions about American Arabs as a whole based on a handful of brunch conversations." This week it's "here are my far-reaching conclusions about Asian cab drivers based on five times I sat in a cab." Look, if you find yourself admitting up front that your observations are baseless you need to do yourself a favor and find something else to write about. This is the laziest of hackery and I certainly hope that Post can do better.

From Lydia, who quotes her cabbie sidekick Najeeb: "The President needs to get on with it already. It's no good this waiting."
====================================
Get on with what, dear Lydia?

You are driving me crazy, Lydia, with your vacuous arguments. This opinion outdid your first contribution.

We are war, in case you had not noticed. I work with people who have to put their lives on the line every day over there, and I am damned sick of the likes of you and others who get their foreign policy experience from cabbies and Robert Rubin.

Your viewpoint disgusts me. Compared to people like you, Obama is a godsend to this country.

This contest has become a joke run by jokers! The sad part is that the Post did so much to put these weirdos in the driver's seat.

Lydia, you lead the pack.

Over and out.

Fashion starts from here. . . HOT SELL Product Brand is below:
Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk: $32
Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ……T-shirt:
Coach /Gucci/Lv/Ed Hardy/D&G/Fendi ……Handbag:$35
Christian Louboutin/Lv/Ed Hardy/Gucci/Coach/Lacoste/ Timbland……Shoe :$35
True Religion/Coogi/Evisu/Ed Hardy/Prada ……Jeans:$30
New era/Gucci/Ed hardy ……cap : $13
Okely/Coach/D&G/Fendi/Gucci/Armani ……sunglass : $15
Nike shoes: 32 $, True Religion jeans: 30 $, Ed Hardy, t-shirts: 12 $, NFL Jersey: 20 $, Boots UGG: 50 http://www.coolforsale.com
thanks!!!

This is one of the most juvenile posts, thus far. It is written in a way that Ms. Khalil believes her audience is a bunch of eight graders. Why does she remind me of the female version of Charlie Krauthammer.

The issue(s in Afghanistan are many, and several are very complex, then Ms. Khalil would have some to believe.

One of the primary issues, is the amount of CORRUPTION in the Afghan Gov't that runs rampant like the drug cartels overseeing the poppy fields.

President Obama DOES NOT need to field any Afghan cabbies to understand the amount of corruption in Afghani, so please stop with the BS.

As a matter of fact, stop writing. You are nothing but another Conservative Hack in wolves clothing.

Well,I think England answered a lot of question about Afghanistan for us today.England said;they are prepared to stay in Afghanistan for (5) more years and add 500 more soldiers to their total of 9000.So,you can bet that is what Obama is thinking.Adding more national guard and army reserve troops and staying until 2014

Why is nobody talking about eliminating the poppy fields that finance the Taliban? What is going on here? We have a way to cripple the Taliban by destroying their source of funding, but we are not doing it! Who is being protected? Are our soldier's deaths so unimportant? This should be THE issue being discussed every time the war in Afghanistan is mentioned.

Hardly anything new presented in this column. Showing wise leadership is more important than making hasty, "decisive" decisions. Afghanistan is becoming another Vietnam. The United States needs to stay out of other countries civil wars, just as the Lincoln administration insisted European powers stay out of the American civil war. Military intervention has nothing to do with United States "leadership" in the international community. No more American lives should be wasted there. Bring the troops home.

Obama's admirable instinct to consult is getting in the way of the urgent need to move forward. The season for consultation is over. The longer Obama hesitates the louder the doubts grow over whether the U.S. is still able to lead and whether the ultimate decision is the right one.

The question remains: Does Obama have the audacity to decide?
....................................
The writer is totally for the use of more American troops in Afghanistan where even the general who originally wanted 85,000 more troops admitted that these troops would not defeat the Taliban.

It is almost the 30th anniversary of the Soviets sending troops into Afghanistan.

It is now 2009 and it is seen that the the soldiers of Pakistan are effective in fighting and defeating the Taliban in Pakistan.

Only Afghans will defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and sending in more American troops only increases the likelihood of the Taliban starting a crusade against foreign invaders such as the crusade that drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

The question of the author that remains is not : Does Obama have the audacity to decide? of this supporter of sending more troops but simply will Obama simply decide to send more troops as the author wants.

Hopefully the President will take his time and on the 30th anniversary of the Soviets sending troops to fight and die in Afghanistan we will not make the same mistake when even the American general calling for more troops declares that we can not defeat the Taliban. Simply having Americans dying as we wait for the Afghans to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan is not a military strategy but military suicide.

Hopefully authors will stop trying to goad the President in sending more American troops to die in Afghanistan.

It is easy to be courageous in print with the lives of others.

Last week there were demonstrators in Kabul based on rumors that foreign invaders were burning Korans.

The supporters of the plan to use American forces to defend population areas never consider the reality of a few Taliban followers firing on American troops in a crowded area and creating a fire fight where dozens of innocents Afghans are killed by automatic fire.

They never consider that to Afghans there is a large difference between innocents killed by a fire fight of Afghans and a fire fight between Afghans and foreign troops.

They never consider that American troops defending large areas requires small patrols repeating the areas that they patrol and that this offers ideal conditions for these troops to be attacked by the Taliban.

They never consider that Americans troops responsible for defending Afghans can offer no protection from the Taliban wolves that can come at night and disembowel and behead any Afghan that they feel has collaborated with the enemy.

There is a great deal of support about the strategy of the general but not one supporter mention the fact that the general admits that his strategy will not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

All that said about the strategy of sending more American troops to protect population areas is that this strategy will allow the Taliban to create the same type of crusade against foreign troops in Afghanistan that forced the Soviets out.

At some point the so called experts have to recognize that besides the capabilities of the United States it is important to know your enemy and the history of your enemy.

One would have thought that by this time that we were done with military strategy that promised only that American troops would die.

Military forces should be used where they can clearly achieve a victory and defeat the enemy. Military forces should not be used in situations where they can not clearly achieve a victory or defeat the enemy.

Afghanistan is a place on a map having a population of 35,000,000, organized by some 500 tribes and three major ethnic groups, the largest of which being Pashtun, which extends into north and eastern Pakistan. We might call Afghanistan a place or country, but not a state or a nation. Its politics are strictly local and consists of choosing tribal leaders. The government in Kabul is entirely dependant on the support of the tribal leaders.

Afghanistan is one of most conservative countries on earth. If there is any glue that holds them together it consists of shared customs, traditions and religion; not the man-made rule of law that defines the modernity of the West. Absent the rule of law, corruption becomes common, effective and accepted as a necessary evil. It's the grease that lubricates any semblance of central governance.

Because of their devotion to their customs and traditions, Afghans have resisted foreign invaders for two thousand years. Now comes America, seeking to protect its own national security with 60,000 troops already on the ground and taking unacceptable casualties, contemplating another 40,000.

What should we do? The last thing we should do is ask cabbies who left their homelands to live and work in America, the place where modernity was born (and the right wing of the Republican Party want’s to abort). Should we learn the lessons of history, or just hope it will be different because we are America?

What would we think and do if a foreign country decided to send soldiers to America to fix a problem with the best of intentions. What would we do? Of course, even if we had no military, we would take up arms and kill them. We would succeed of course, we would have the advantage of knowing the terrain, the language, the customs and traditions. Home field advantage.

If I were the President, I wouldn’t send more troops unless I knew I had the support of the tribal leaders (in both Afghanistan and Pakistan) , by any means necessary. Unless the generals can show me that success is a certainty. I don’t think they can.

Khalil feels a bit conflicted over polar opposites: reaching consensus vs. a unilateral decision. IN this situation of a plan for Afghanistan, there is no middle ground. Afghanistan is a mess domestically and internationally. Afghanistan has little to offer the international community. Thus the case for an American "strategic interest" is very weak.

Rather than focus almost exclusively on Obama's "decision making style", which has little to do with Afghanistan, I feel Khalil could have helped frame America's "strategic interests" in the region. Apart from "known oil reserves", and Israel-Palestine conflict, what forces are working in the region?

One further thought -- I think Obama was wise to wait for the Afghan election to sort itself out. I agree that the recent denouement of the electoral run-off now demands a decision, but he was nevertheless wise to wait things out.

I like the piece both in terns of content and tone. The only criticism I would have is the emphasis upon decision making as being more important than the decision. Makes me remember "The decider." I think it would have been stronger to say that we had one president, "The Decider" who governed arbitrarily, and poorly, another who is governing by concensus, and poorly, and surely there must be a balancing point between the two. As an independent, I like equal opportunity attackers.

Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being a "war of necessity"; in March '09 he publically said he had a "new strategy"; he handpicked a new general. This is now November and he has not made any decisions regarding the conduct and course of Afghanistan engagements. Some synonyms for command are instruct, control, manage, compel, direction and secure. Study is not one of them. Obama was not elected health provider in chief, fundraiser in chief or even golfer in chief. He was elected Commander In Chief. It's past time for him to command.

Just another Bushie talking. Let's get our information from cabbies. Let's just take action NOW, without thought or a workable plan. Oh by the way President Obama, no need to review options because I already decided endless war is the answer. Spend America's money and rebuild my part of the world.

Another pathetic WashPost Neocon.

Joebanks wrote: "A vast majority of those immigrant cabbies working the Northeast corridor is from South Asia" should be "are from South Asia."

Uh uh. See: http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/subject-.htm:

"Agreement of collective nouns and their verbs
(Bedford 21j and k/Hodges'6a)

A collective noun presents a group of people or objects as a single unit. We use collective nouns to represent things that are not usually counted as single items: committee, family, class. Unless the sentence clearly draws attention to the individual members or parts of a collective noun, use the singular form of the verb. (Bedford 21e/ Harbrace 6a/8.)"
i.e., majority is.

I suppose the next stop will be retirement homes, where you can talk with 5 random people and infer what Afghanistan policy should be.

The mistake here was choosing to nation build a resource free, ungovernable hole like Afghanistan. We could leave there, and only return to whack-a-mole when the latest threat pops up, and it will make no difference at all. We would not need as many troops if our only goal there was to kill the enemy and protect our own troops.

But no, we find the Afghanistan war morphing into guaranteeing safety of all citizens in major population areas from terrorism. When will that ever be accomplished? The answer of course, is never. We moved from a clear goal of killing the Taliban and Al Quada into rebuilding the country and serving as its police force.

What I find really strange is how Obama can drag out the decision making on Afghanistan for months and months and months at the direct cost of US soldier lives, yet that kind of deliberation and consulting is absent in his hell bent rush to pass health care or the latest bailout. Were he to apply such deliberation to the trillions upon trillions of dollars he is wasting on inefficient and ineffective stimulus programs, we would be in much better financial shape and stronger footing for sustaining an ambitious effort like nation building Afghanistan.

International Heroin dealers will soon own Afghanistan. The nation that exports the purest Heroin controls the world. The competition among drug dealers to get high grade Heroin is fierce, one pure gram can be stretched 100 times. Only the well connected get the pure and become billionaires. But they in return owe more than money to their benefactors, it is allegiance to a foreign power. Thousands of well connected drug dealers have been placed in every city of the world, they exert tremendous influence on governments. They have become wealthy enough to buy militias and assassins. An Octopus with tentacles made up of Heroin dealers has taken control of the world.

Tedfriar writes: "Khalil hints at the decision that President Obama is wrestling with. But like many in and around the Washington Establishment she cannot get herself to come right out and say it: The decision that Obama must ponder is whether America can be, or should become, an empire, with all that that implies."

That's because the Washington establishment has no intention of asking itself that question. It's taken as a given that America should be a military empire and should try to dominate the world, the only question is on the Beltway is how. The base assumptions are never challenged or even acknowledged.

This author certainly fits that mould - hardly a surprise given her day job. It would be stunning if the Post employed somebody from outside that consensus. After all, this is a paper whose flagship "liberal" correspondents, EJ Dionne and Richard Cohen, both supported invading Iraq.

Writing is flat and drearily competent. No oomph, no flourishes, reads like a student essay.

Author is a Beltway Bandit, full of Beltway conventional wisdom. Is that really what the Post needs? More Beltway perspective?

The CFR, which employs this woman, has been pumping out this kind of noncommittal, uncontroversial mush ever since the US invaded Afghanistan - and the Post has been a major conduit.

The thing with cabbie interviews (having been a cabbie to pay for college) is that you meet such a wide range of people. It is the cabbie's observations about peoples wide range of problems, experiences and opinions that makes for intersting cabbie interviews. Just getting the cabbies position on a subject is like anyone elses, not particularly unique and in this case not very interesting. Though the final comment, "Just get on with it" is probably good advice because the longer you mull over pulling a band aid off or jumping in the deep end of the pool rarely changes the pain or shock and you still have to deal with what you find under the band aid or in the pool.

Lydia,
1st, I liked this piece more than your 1st submission because I'm simply more interested in the subject matter. Oh, you start with the same provincial gossip...your parents Arab American friends watch Fox news replaced by South Asian cabbies who have strong opinions about conflict in their homes of origin. Funny, they don't seem to agree any more than the rest of America.
Hint #1...DC cabbies listen to political talk radio...terribly provincial! Out here in Oregon most cabbies are immigrants also. Somalia, Ethiopia, Russia, wherever...they get here, they make arrangements among themselves in order to get licenses and vehicles and go to work. I invariably, as you did, interview them about the origins and opinions. But we're political junkies! Most passengers in Portland would not appreciate having Rush Limbaugh bleating in their ear on a morning ride to the airport (yes, it is a morning program out here in the western territories). The local college jazz station or soft ethnic music off a CD would be more likely. The tip on top of the fare is the goal and irritated or offended customers are notoriously cheap.
You do get to your main premise which exhibits a world view. You are, after all, a CFR "expert." I boil it down to one issue. Obamas response to the McChrystal report in its timing and substance will inform world leaders as to the "stomach" America has for long term counter-insurgency and nation building. Obama can find out (and is surely trying) without your cabbie friends. He can first judge the merits of the man he appointed and then, at the risk of being provincial, ask the rest of us.
1st, General McChrystal. His signature is on a meritorious combat award given to one Pat Tillman. An exceptional young man in all respects, Tillman was killed in Afghanistan. The award stated that this was the result of engagement with hostile forces. In fact his death was the result of a "friendly fire" accident. I'm a combat veteran (Vietnam). I understand this happens as I have witnessed and survived such incidents. For an American General, who knew or should have known these circumstances as the debriefing reports were clear, to go ahead and use this as a propaganda tool, which they did with vigor, is reprehensible and casts doubt on his ability to form geopolitical strategy as well. If we can't expect him to tell the truth about our sons and daughters then how can we trust him at all? So for the President to take the time to listen to other opinions and watch events unfold...the Afghan elections for example...seems prudent. Don't worry, if you really want a long term American strategy of counter-insurgency and nation building, well, 40,000 troops in the next month or 3 months from now...these are tactics, not strategy. This gonna take a while.
As to the 2nd point, does "America" have the "stomach" for all this. Don't ask Obama or the cabbies. Ask us! You'll quickly find that for many of us (indeed most) the answer is a loud NO! We are about as interested in what leaders in Albania or wherever think of us as Afghans are about what we think of them. Let them bvuild their own damn nations. Let them provide a safe environment and we'll send civilians to help out...ever heard of the Peace Corps? We'll put boots on the ground to root out and kill the jihadist punks who murdered our folk and intend to do so in the future. We want our military people out, as Obama put it during the campaign, as carefully as we got in carelessly. But we need to leave a sign in loud and bold letters. Harbor those thugs and we'll be back and we won't be concerned about "collateral damage." Have your cabbie friends tell that to their fiances. That ought to help get the word out.

Ahh, the old cabbie interview ploy. It would have been a compelling piece if one or more of them had had a novel perspective. Since they didn't, that part of the piece boils down to "cabbies' views on AfPak are about like the public's at large"...hardly op/ed column material.
The grammar and syntax issues have been discussed elsewhere. I'm not as bothered by them as other commenters, but in this day and age there's little excuse for them.
Finally, exhorting the president to "decide already" because the options and opinions appear conflicting is a bit simplistic. There are many instances in history where leaders waited in order to gain support from others, leverage trends, or determine the level of commitment from the leaders of the countries directly involved. I would have expected Ms. Khalil's position at CFR would have taught her that.
I'm looking for freshness in this contest. I didn't find it here.

The piece has a bit of the old 'I was talking to some regular Joes the other day', though, in this case, they were regular Abdullahs.
However, I would have been a lot more impressed if the writer had noted that Bush took 3 months to "decide" to go along with Petraeus plan to reduce the mayhem in Iraq, and if anyone on Fox news accused him of "dithering" I missed it.

This should have been the title to this piece: Just ask Najeeb: "The President needs to get on with it already. It's no good this waiting."

Next Great Pundit Scorecard:

Selected: 5 men, 5 women – no surprise there. Met the D word requirement – Diverse group.

Seven were either bad, dumb, light weight, single issue writers(3), Obama bashing, Fox news supporting, or watered down with “fair and balanced” writing (5). Not one did a credible job covering a big, national issue. Not one supported the president.

Three were actually quite good, all by women. One was youth’s view, one single issue, one was personal and very insightful. All covered big, important national issues.

Bottom line, WP did a poor job selecting. 5 men, 5 women - seriously? Several were so bad the contestants have no chance to win. Single issue writers, gone in 60 seconds. Excluding the 3, no depth, no insight, no original thought. Oh, I guess in that way it does mimic with current crop of opinion writers in the WashPost.

Actually, I liked this. I think it actually makes a good point: It's all well and good to seek many viewpoints, but the decision is ultimately Obama's, and he definately needs to be more assertive in his decision making.

Note to those who don't read carefully: This article does not actually suggest that the President begin seeking out the opinions of cabbies.

Far and away the best piece I've read so far. Doesn't sound like a college essay (as a few of these have), nor does it try too hard to be flashy. In short, it's the one most in line with the quality and style of contemporary pundits.

My only qualm is that it seems to first make a great point that the situation is complicated, thus making it difficult to pool opinions into a concensus, but it then it leaps somewhat abrubptly to its 'Decide already!' conclusion. It's a potentially valid point, but the essay loses some style points for not coming together more smoothly at the end.

Two things:

(1) Another sign of the decline of copy-editing. There were numerous instances of incorrect word choice, misplaced or missing words, subject-verb disagreement.

(2) The piece is founded on a fundamentally flawed premise -- that Obama is a buyer looking for a unified foreign policy recommendation that he can purchase. On the contrary, Obama is the craftsman, looking to create a foreign policy strategy that he can use as a framework for individual decisions.

He is not indecisive, he is thoughtful. He is following the dictum "Don't just do something; stand there!" When a decision palpably affects the fate of millions and the course of international relations for decades to come, a little trepidation and thoughtfulness seems like wise policy.

I like this article...well written,but i thought this contest was for ordinary folks..not world travelers..and minorities exclusive

Oh no, I was hoping for a better piece by Lydia after her first essay, which I thought was the worst of all the finalists' pieces. This was not a good second attempt. Sorry.

The point forgotten here is why it might be advantageous for Obama Administration to wait. Afghan election was one clear point where waiting for its resolution has been in America's strategic interests. The other one is ongoing war in Southern Wazaristan where it makes strategic sense to wait for some decisive developments there.

I think omission of this point makes the analysis one dimensional. Otherwise it is needed for the author to demonstrate that there is no 'beef' in all such commonly argued incentives for waiting in this matter.

The point about 'any such military decision would make many sides unhappy' needs to be argued with respect to actual principle players of the decision making group and their stated policy prescriptions; not some Taxi drivers in certain metro cities.

We all know what happened in case of Bush's Iraq war, when many consequences were not thought through and lot many warnings were completely ignored (Gen. Shinsiki, Paul Krugman)

Agreed, lengthy deliberations are no guarantees for right strategic decisions; but when waiting is advantageous, one might as well do the thorough planning necessary.

Falls flat with a cute premise--that is if you don't live in NYC. In NYC, pundits of all stripes do cabbie-think surveys all the time. Writing is puerile and pedestrian. Kahlil has little real-world experience. I still would like her to disclose what her advice was to Paul Bremer of the CPA and how she is can be connected with the stupendous results we had early on in Iraq governance. The dollar waste part is out of the bag, but I am sure, given her self-described role, that she can elucidate on politico-mil decisions at the time. And how does this lard her workfor CSIS presently?

I know Hiatt is cheap--he has to be after running the Post into the ground--but couldn't he have lent you an editor, or at least a proofreader?

"A vast majority of those immigrant cabbies working the Northeast corridor is from South Asia" should be "are from South Asia."

"that is both informed and invested in both U.S. policy and how it affects conditions back home?" should be "that is both informed in U.S. policy and invested in how it affects conditions back home?"

"Cabbies spend a lot of time listing to political talk radio" should be "Cabbies spend a lot of time listening to political talk radio"

"The only time they are not listening to talk radio is when they are chattering on their earpieces" I know it's a quibble but you don't actually talk into the earpiece but the mike.

"Pass by any taxi rank"...what is a taxi rank? Did you mean a que?

"These guys have a finger to pulse of both" should be "These guys have a finger to (the) pulse(s) of both" or should that be "finger(s)" or maybe this is another stretched cliche that should have been dumped in the first place?

"No doubt, this is a difficult decision, and its effects are far-reaching." Needs...more commas.

"The decision whether or not to go forward with Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations will cement whether or not counterinsurgency will be the prevailing military doctrine for years to come." This is a really bad sentence that could have been fixed easily: "The decision about Gen. McChrystal's recommendations will determine military doctrine on counterinsurgency for years to come."

----------------------------

Aside from the poor writing you completely ignore the complexities and complications of Obama's situation. The previous administration could not have screwed this up worse. Obama is stuck in a military quagmire with "nation-building" by way of a crooked government installed by the CIA the only way out. It takes more than slogans and can-do spirit to build a nation in Afghanistan. The answer Obama gives is likely, and wisely, going to be a compromise. As is his nature, he will be focused on cooling things down and letting time and a calmer US government sink in.

In other words, be prepared for the answer you don't like: wait as long as possible. It's not a matter of win or lose, of build a democracy or abandon all hope. Time is on our side if we behave fairly and rationally and we manage not to let the CIA hire the bad guys to run things.

This piece has cabbie interviews, all it's really missing here are a few mixed metaphors, a great deal of excitement over a common idiom that the author was apparently the last english speaking person alive to encounter, a complete misunderstanding of that idiom, even more excitement about the author's latest high-tech gizmo, and a mustache. Stir all those in the mix and you've got a book, albeit one that has already been written by Tom Friedman.

But the brilliant touch in this piece was this:

"Alas, it appears as if city cabbies are just as divided as the rest of the so-called experts."

That's just beautiful. After all, how is it possible that the "so called experts" could be giving the president any advice that isn't also being broadcast on talk radio, to be devoured and regurgitated by cab drivers? It baffles, it boggles, it blows the mind.

This article caught my eye because I thought it might contain some insight. But after all that buildup about how in-tune the cabbies are, there are just a couple of obvious comments from them, and we're on to the real point - her opinion. She should have just said that from the start and used the space to flesh out her opinion.

Abandoning our commitment in Afghanistan sends the world a message: the U.S. does not follow through on their promises. They cannot be trusted.

If these cabbies are so dedicated to the future of Afghanistan, their country, then why are they not there in the midst of the battle? They could be working from within their own country to change the political situation for the good of the Afghan people.

Looks like they want to change things from afar and not be involved in the day-to-day problems and possible solutions. It is up to the people of Afghanistan to change their leadership and country for the better.

I give Lydia a 1 out of 10, with 10 being the highest. She is a notch above Mr. Jackson. But come on, talking to cabbies? That's the old last resort of every columnist who has more money than ideas. At first, I thought she was praising President Obama for not being the "Decider", then it's clear she wants him to be Bush, Jr. At least be clear and consistent about your position! And have something new to say if you're going to talk about Afghanistan!

None of these guys address the problem of paying for this adventure. If taxes are not raised, more money will have to be borrowed, deficits will continue to rise; unless the economy grows, this can only result in inflation. Ask a cab driver if he's willing to pay more taxes and see his money disappear into a war with no end.

This piece starts and ends well, but I have some problems with the middle. This lady provides an intimate insight into a private world I know little of. As long as she stayed on the cabbies, I was with her, but when she moved beyond that, she kind of lost me. A writer will have to go far to interest this reader in hearing any more commentary on Afghanistan. I'll be interested to see what the judges say.
If I had written this, I'd want to go back and freshen up some of the imagery, and get rid of a little "repetition" , but I think that's what editors are for. The "Garrison Keillor to Kathy Griffin" line didn't work for me because they are both comedians. A little extra thought or editing could have made this an excellent piece. Worth reading. And based on this, if I were an editor I would give this lady another look.

Khalil hints at the decision that President Obama is wrestling with. But like many in and around the Washington Establishment she cannot get herself to come right out and say it: The decision that Obama must ponder is whether America can be, or should become, an empire, with all that that implies.

The demands of Afghanistan are such that nothing can be reasonably accomplished in the short term -- and by short term I mean years, not months. A fractured society in a dangerous neighborhood calls for letting events take their natural course or a near-permanent deployment of troops much as Rome deployed its legions in order to keep the peace and shape the world to its liking.

The constant and circular arguments within Washington over changing missions and fluctuating troop levels are but one manifestation of this temporizing that refuses to face squarely the central question: does America and the American democracy have the capacity to send significant numbers of it citizens into hostile areas with no end in sight. That is an imperial decision, and why the leader of a democratic republic is having such a hard time making it.

Khalil flinches from using the word "empire" even as she describes one, as with this graph here on the fundamental decision facing President Obama: "No doubt, this is a difficult decision, and its effects are far-reaching. The ultimate strategy for Afghanistan has ramifications beyond our diplomatic and military strategy for the region. The decision whether or not to go forward with Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations will cement whether or not counterinsurgency will be the prevailing military doctrine for years to come. How much the U.S. focuses on institutional reform, governance and infrastructure as part of any new strategy will answer once and for all whether the United States has the stomach or the capability to engage in modern-day nation building."

The technical wizardry and awesome firepower of the American military is very good at restoring the status quo ante -- to destroy Saddam's army when he invaded his neighbor or to be a "force multiplier" to assist a friendly government put down a rebellion. The American military is very good at blowing things up, but it was not designed to take over and occupy and essentially become another country itself. Because that requires boots on the ground for decades or even centuries to come -- and an honest determination by the American people and its leaders that we are an American Empire and need to start acting like one, whether we like it or not.

So when Khalil advises the Obama administration to "decide already," she fails to take account of the fact that the decision Obama is wrestling with go far beyond the borders or circumstances of Afghanistan to the much larger question of what kind of nation-state and regime does America wants to be, as Khalil herself seems to admit without saying so directly.

This is obviously a piece written by a neocon misrepresenting the Muslim taxi drivers. I personally have not met many American Muslims thrilled by our hugely expensive war policies, which they consider counterproductive and damaging our economy.
They put settling justly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of their priorities. If that were done they feel Al Qaeda would wither on the vine. But they are not hopeful that we can or have the will to do so; at least not now. Maybe another sharp decline in our economy will concentrate our minds.

"What is fundamentally at stake is the standing of the United States and its ability to lead the international community. But the United States' ability to lead is correlated with its ability to be decisive."
You should specify. Only leading is not the objective. The objective should be leading to a humanistic bath not a bath of occupation, blood shedding and torture. Following the imperialistic bath the US has taken after world war II till now should not be an option( Palestine, Korea, Vietnam, Iran,Vietnam, central America, Afghanistan, Iraq,...). I never trusted the so called "think tanks" because they are like "war tanks"
I know it is very difficult for Obama to change the bath to a humanistic one right away because the resistance in the US is very high from the power centers which make profit from the current situation. It is also a matter of mentality whose change has a long time constant. We have to understand that killing one person is a big crime. We have also to understand that resistance to occupation is a natural and respectful movement if it uses the right means.Thus the term "counterinsurgency" is always used by the occupying powers like Nazi in France, France in Algeria,the US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It is not respectful.
The military needs always more forces and materials because war is their profession and generaly they have limited perspective . They want to finish the "job" . Obama has to change this job otherwise he shall be in the same category of those before him.
Another problem is that the western propaganda is always speaking of Alqaeda. Alqaeda has done that, Alqaeda wants to do that, and so on. People shall be surprized to know that there is no organization called Alqaeda. There are only two persons with extreme ideology who are hiding somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan and Alqaeda is only a phantom created to justify many things the US and Allies are doing. Unfortunately the media are using the same phantom for obvious reasons.
Nation building is not a duty of the US. What any nation can do is helping the Afghans (from outside) to build their destroyed country. Get your troops and those of those of the willing countries out of Afghanistan and follow a humanistic policy. Thus you get the respect and love of all the peace loving in this world.

I am completely surprised by the many war supporters amongst Taxi drivers. Couldnt it be that some Taxi drivers say what they believe the person wants to hear?

And the old other thing that makes the U.S. less believable: "she little values the lives of our troops or the cost of war". What are the costs of war for the Afghans? The value of lives of villagers? At least they are the attacked or liberated, if you prefer. It is perfectly obvious, the well being of Afghans does not matter in that war.

I take this as a humor piece, I think it should have found a way to end as one. If this were a serious piece, I'd be more impressed if you had asked any of these guys what they think we should do, asssuming we are to stay in Afghanistan, about the massively corrupt Karsai government, which we are now apparently stuck with. Trying to center a counter-insurgency campaign around those guys is like trying to run a footrace with one leg in a bucket of cement. Finally, it may be a good idea to go question some homegrown American cabbies, since whether something is good for Afghanistan is not quite the point.

I still don't understand why neither this contestant pundit nor many other Americans can't grasp the reality that the stated United States objectives (there may be some unpublished ones we're never going to hear about)HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED in Afghanistan. Consider: Vanquish al-Qaeda? "Mission accomplished" (they're nearly all now camped out next door in Pakistan). Ensure al-Qaeda won't return if we Americans pull out of Afghanistan? "Mission accomplished" (Afghans, including the Taliban, don't want them back because they cause air wars, ground invasions and foreign occupations that run on for years ... plus al-Qaeda has already been unceremoniously tossed out of Afghanistan once before and may reasonably be assumed not to want another "instant replay" if they should try to re-establish themselves there).

So come on, Americans, and quit trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a backward, third-world country which has long-since learned that it doesn't pay to mess with the U.S.

This started off interesting, and then became dull, poorly written, and foolish. There is a lot at stake in Afghanistan and to compare think-tank opinions to cab-driver opinions and suggest that he randomly choose a strategy is offensive.

Sadly, Lydia Khalil makes her first public appearance as a member of the great yapping crowd of people bursting into print to express the view that they know better than the president (as the years go by, this tends to be president after president) about issues international domestic, chosen at random; that they have the right to tick off the president for not being as intelligent, well-informed or good-looking as they are; and that they are fully aware the president doesn't care at all what they think or write. This in no ways troubles them.

Allying such wit and wisdom with a cab driver's doesn't help much.

The initial premise is amusing, but she doesn't sustain the premise, the tone, or my interest.

Khalil two contributions both adopt a contrarian tone but end up delivering conventional opinions with little supporting evidence. I've grown rather tired of Will; why would I bother to read Khalil?

On the substance of Khalil's opinion, from the distance of the West Coast it appears Obama is consulting stakeholders and experts to identify the options and evaluate them - this is a little weightier than sampling the opinions of cabbies or talk show hosts. Her 'just decide' attitude suggests that she little values the lives of our troops or the cost of war. I anticipate only shallow thoughts from her.

Cabbies get the "nuances" of the war debate from talk radio?? Are you really serious? Please enlighten us as to what "nuance" Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh have ever discussed on their radio shows when it came to war (or just about any other issue).

I mean, it's one thing to ask them what they think to get what the "common man" thinks about an issue, but usually the common man also doesn't do nuance in the first place, so you're probably going to get soundbite responses without much depth.

Wow! I thought this article was great! Again, a fresh perspective that resonates at the true heart of the matter. Love the closing lines... "audacity to decide".

Love it.

Well, we certainly discovered just how valuable Cabbies were in Somalia -- indeed, several Cabbies were very well connected indeed, but that was apparently learned too late.

Thus, asking Cabbies what they think about Afghanistan, maybe like asking restaurant employees if they want to be the King of Afghanistan [the present leader.] LOL

It could be A valuable input, but it should be by far not an exclusive input. It also should not be openly done -- only by anonymous passengers from maybe the CIA, DIA and NSC.

Congrats !!!

The cabbie conceit is an extremely weak argument which the author eventually abandons in favor of her opinions which I seriously doubt derive from cab drivers.

On a sincerety scale of zero to ten, zero.

Ms. Khalil chose an interesting topic. I too have found numerous cabbies who have been more than willing to share their political views with me. I was interested to read more after the first couple of paragraphs but then she lost me. This story definitely did not live up to its potential. I was hoping to get more of a view into the political discussions between cabbies and less of her personal opinion on what Pres. Obama should do next.

Not only did this piece lack originality, but in my opinion, its main premise is skewed.

Cabbies might spend all day listening to talk-radio - but WHICH talk radio programs are they listening to?

It's a fairly big conceptual leap from NPR and Democracy America to Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk, whether it be Salvage, Beck, O'Reilly, etc.

If DC cabbies are really listening to all that conservative talk radio, why would any reasonable, sane person what to ask them anything?

The point of the article, however, is whether Obama is decisive enough to make military decisions in a timely manner.

The second point, though, is less valid - that of whether the U.S. has the "guts" to engage in nation-building. Perhaps the more pertinent question is rather whether the U.S. has the right.....

Two thumbs down.

So, the next great pundit advises Obama to flip a coin. It's not the decision that counts, it's deciding. Not a very enlightening opinion.

Congrats on being a finalist! You picked an interesting angle. However, you ended up with rehashed statements on this issue. It did not feel new or interesting.

This would have gone back for a rewrite without grade at Miami of Ohio if it had been submitted in English 11, way back in 1965 or so. Itisn't even a good first dradt. Not much focus, and no real thought, just the blather you can pick up on no thoughtradio.

Demonstrates virtually no understanding of the superficial terms of the debate and makes no attempt to get at the underlying considerations.

And flatly just a chore to read.