Esper commits the usual pundit crime when writing about Afghanistan: he thinks, or knows, that the Afghans don't matter much, or at all. Those who matter are the visiting Americans. The issue that matters is how many Americans should be there, and for how long.

Good, expositional and intellectual article, but still seems kind of usual and ordinary, on par with the rest of the pundits "punditting" about Afghanistan.

No outside force has tamed this region in two thousand years. Not the Mongols, the Ottomans, the Russians or any of half a dozen other invaders. But of course Charles Krauthammer, from the safety of his wheelchair and keyboard, is certain that we will be the first - if we just pour a few hundred thousand more troops in.

Funny, these same people say that just throwing more money at our schools won't help fix them. You know, better teachers, books for each student and working computers won't help. But throwing more lives at a new Vietnam? That will help lots. (For the defense contractors who these neocons are deeply enmeshed with, I'm sure they are absolutely right.)

You had me up until the last few paragraphs. Obama has already escalated Afghanistan and expanded into Pakistan. He has shown little ability or desire to confront the military industrial complex as he submitted the largest defense spending bill ever. Its highly unlikely he will radically shift policy in Afghanistan to anything other than the narrow confines of military force as the only solution.

Responding to another Coloradan is kind of nice. Congratulations on becoming a finalist, Mark. A good column, overall, but a little too rambling for my taste.

Having said that our victory in 2001 was a mirage, and that the situation in Afghanistan is bad, I think it might have been nice to come up with some ideas on what sort of victory would not be chimerical. For example, should the U.S. stop putting so much effort into creating what Afghanistan has never had, and never wanted, a strong central government, or should we start building up provincial governments to be able to sustain themselves? Remember federalism? The Swiss may have invented it, but we're supposed to be experts at it, and yet we advocate strong central governments in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where such governments are inevitably oppressive.

Too much talk about he two Vietnams Bush got us into.
Afghanistanians did not attact us.
Neither did Iraq.
I warned friends before Iraq 2 that it would be a quagmire.
Some countries require a dictator or strong leader, wish we had a stronger, no one ntice how some European countries fell apart after their keaders were over thrown. Some of the cultures cannot adapt to democracy and we should stop saving the parts of the world that want not saving.

From his “perch on the Rockies” the putative pundit shows his ignorance of the Middle East (and other non-democratic countries) realities. The Roman proverb “woe to the losers (in war)” is still in force in the ME – no law will protect you from your enemies if you are weak.
Thus there is no “draw” in wars there –either you win or you are annihilated without mercy, “due process” or other democratic values. When the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan, women were stoned in the market square for not wearing the chador or other offences the fanatic Moslem clerics deems worthy of the death penalty. The World Heritage status did not protect the huge historic Buddha statues from the Taliban dynamite. Worst was the safe haven given to the Al-Qaida to plot and execute the 9/11 attack on thousands of innocent US civilians.
Not winning the war in Afghanistan, with not buts and ifs, will give the country back to the Taliban and Al-Qaida. This will give a message to all the terrorist organizations that the Democracies are strong in speeches, not in resolve, encouraging them to increase their attacks.
The population in Afghanistan, and in other ME countries, want to live in peace, but when people are not protected from the terrorist organizations, they will support them out fear. They know that anyone opposing the terrorists will be beheaded in public, while if the leaders of the terrorists are caught, they will be entitled to the protection of the Democratic laws and will be eventually released.

We do not need more such “pundits” that project their worthy values on the opponents of democracy, believing that these values are universal.

This piece praises Obama for dithering and then dithers on its own. "More troops very well may be required"?? What a nonsensical conclusion. The continued occupation is nothing but a long war crime that serves the interests only of war profiteering. The U.S. cannot impose freedom, democracy and stability on Afghanistan even if that was our sincere goal -- which I very much doubt, since the U.S. has almost never supported those objectives in any of its military conflicts form the late 19th century on.

Not bad , lacks a certain punch but good allusion to failed jingoist ramblings of bush et al; could have referenced DejaVoodo of Vietnam as to USA not having learned its' lesson from that Police action quagmire.

Mark..,.,I judge your piece this way. It is about as good as most of the stuff done by pundits already established on this subject. I have always maintained that issues of war and peace are the most important of concerns...we'll muddle thru the economy, health care, even global warming and such. Sending your best young people out to kill and be killed..you'd better be right. So I read Ignatius, Kristof, and yes, even Krauthammer (he didn't just drink the neocon cool-aid, he helped invent it). Given you don't have the resources to travel to the actual battlefields your piece was still historical and informative. Good chronological format. You had an impact; I loved the neocon wannabe's criticism that you didn't refer to Clauswitz...Ha! Without using the term, you pointed out the difficulties of a counter-insurgency strategy in a corrupt and tribal backwater...but I think you chickened out in the end. You write that Obama must act quickly. So what should he do? Should he give McChrystal, the same general who signed on to the propaganda fiasco concerning the death of Pat Tillman, whatever he wants and for how long? I served in Vietnam, I was part of the early escalations. 36,000 to 560,000 troops in some 6 years...how'd that work out? He can withdraw and be accused of "losing Afghanistan." Probably doesn't come up to Truman "losing China." Or he can "dither" while the Pakistanis ramp it up, finally, on the other side of a border that we cannot cross with boots on the ground...talk about disaster, they already have nukes! There is, in fact, no hurry if the decision is to go with the C-I option. 40,000 won't make much difference. We'll need a lot more than that. This is not a "surge." It will be a commitment with no end in sight and with geopolitical ramifications far beyond the borders of that pitiful narco-state. Take some time Obama. It's war and peace.

And the point is?

Yes Kraphammer is wrong frequently. Yes Bush declared victory before the battle was fought. Yes right wingers are baiting Obama, and left wingers are trying to deny the problems will exist if we leave.

No fresh insight here. No ideas of how to look at the problem differently or approach it differently.

Somewhat disappointing.

Does anyone remember how many times Obama voted "present" prior to the inauguration? That's his modus operandi. When all else fails--- do nothing doesn't work for Presidents who have sent thousands of troops into Afganville.
By the way, Charles K made the statement about AFG long BEFORE the prez sent the troops and made "this war" the one we need to win. A small-town wannabe writer might take stock and refrain from insulting a Pulitzer Prize Winning Writer (Genius). It doesn't help your cause. It is petty.

The "pundit" is boring, inarticulate, and he lies and/or has his facts wrong:

"Reports soon emerged of a horrific "convoy of death" operated by America's Northern Alliance allies -- hundreds of Taliban prisoners had suffocated in shipping containers after the bloody revolt in Mazar-e-Sharif."

Scuse me? The containers were used in 1998-2000 by General Dostam and the Taliban, not the Northern Alliance after 2001...and what "bloody revolt in Mazar?"

Look sonny...try writing something about: "What are our National Objectives in Afghanistan?" "Is the force structure right to accomplish these?" "How do Clauswitz's 9 principles of war apply?" Is there unity of command?" "Where to lawyers fit in modern war?"

I'm afraid your "pundit-hood" is destined to be short lived....you, sir, are an utter ignoramous when it comes to Afghanistan. You'd do better to write about something you can handle...how about roller coasters or theme parks?

He's perfect...no mention of why we're in Afghanistan, nor any illumination of what's at stake for American civilians. I endorse the Huffposts recommmendation.

At least Esper did not use the ridiculous nomenclature of the 'AF-PAK War' favored by the Post. Indeed, it took many years of drift in Afghanistan to get where we are today.

The original decision to punish the Taliban was fine.... the decision is stay and occupy this God-forsaken land was horrible and still is. All we are really doing sacrificing young men to be blown up by IEDs and hostile ambushes. If we increase troop strength, we are just providing more fresh targets for the insurgents to kill and maim.

The Republicans supporting this war are just digging their political graves. Americans are suffering from some serious war fatigue. With our economy in shatters, we have no business wasting our precious resources.

The only troop increase I am in favor of, is for President Obama to send all of our DEA agents to Afghanistan. Let them burn and poison all the opium fields. That will really make them mad.

We are slowly sinking into the quicksand of Central Asia. Each new marine or soldier we send over there makes us sink a little deeper.

Hey huffingtonpost. Get this guy on your payroll ASAP. This guy has a clear understanding of the issues and how it affects everyday life. Get a few more ppl like him and you'll be able to bury the Don Graham's nepotism tainted WaPo in a few years.

I dont dislike Collin Powell, but I am not a great fan of Colin Powell, however... if you remember a few years ago , he said more or less, that if you want to win in Iraq ,you will have to own it first...not exactly far from the truth, especially if you relate that statement to Afganistan...Maybe owning it for a decade or two, is the answer...giving it back to the people, only if and when we take care of the business at hand first...What happened to our commitment to go wherever they harbor terrorists and root them out and hold them accountable.......That works for me...

The post by "wiggan" is the appropriate response to this article...good going , i like that answer........

This one lacks the truth, of seeing the obstacle of the past, and the future, of this war; and that is my friends our own inadequacy as a nation..The guts to deal with this war as we need to ...to succeed.The Bush administration touched on it, but stopped short..This administration will never go down that road..So dont critique or complain if you dont have the subsistence to hear or see the truth.....Simple...but true

I found the writing in this piece engaging. However, one of its central argument seems to be "I don't know what President Obama will decide to do in Aghanistan but I plan to agree with it." Actually, I feel the same way - but I don't think it's a great thesis for an op-ed column.

I bet Krauthammer just cr@ped his pants. His articles on Afganistan don't even make half the sense that this article makes. Krauthammer could learn a thing or two about writing Op-Ed pieces from Mark Esper.

Test

Important topic, somewhat useful review of the history. However, sidetracked into partisan blame-casting. Sure, established WaPo pundits do it all the time. Therefore, do we need more of it? It leads away from deeper analysis. Make the Krauthammer observation in passing and move on. B.

A big, national issue. Good insight, many accurate observations. A bit rambling with out a clear point. What did this say?

To lcarter0311: You wrote: "This is the best article, thus far written on the Afghan War." You simply cannot be serious. I suggest you purchase the July/August 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs, and read, "Saving Afghanistan." If that doesn't do it, please let me know. I can give you about 100 others that are far more discerning on the topic than this insipid article.

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.

Do not confuse Obama's stalling tactics in Afghanistan with prudence, or wisdom, or charting out a careful plan. Recall the reckless abandon with which he rammed through stimulus package after bailout bill with little planning, wisdom or due consideration, and witness the corruption, abuse, and ineffectivenes of those plans. Just today I found out they are counting pay raises as 'jobs saved'.

No, Obama is not taking his time for deliberation. Obama is taking his time because he is in a jam. If he does not cut and run from Afghanistan, the lefties will yowl. If he does cut and run in Afghanistan, the Taliban will re-emerge and he will bear full blame for the morass the country sinks into. The only sensible plan for him then is to continue to pursue Bush policy for the region, but dodge blame for doing so under the guise of deliberating a prudent course of action.

The quagmire of Afghanistan began the second the mission changed from killing Taliban and Al Quada into nation building and becoming the police force for the country, and assuming the unattainable goal of protecting all population centers from any terrorist attack. This is an unwinable morass of a war objective. The morass began the second the objective changed.

The proper course of action is to offer Afghanistan whatever assistance they require training their own soliers up to readiness, and leave to them right now the entire job of policing and protecting their own people. We then should focus on killing Taliban and Al Quada and protecting our own troops. We should be able to achieve this mission. It is not a morass objective.

We are not in a position to indefinately nation build and peacekeep for a resourceless backwater like Afghanistan, and with each and every day of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama pushing this nation into futher debt, we become even more dramatically unable to fullfill the unfillable objective.

The CIA built up the BAATH Party in IRAQ and Sadaam after the Shah (our secular bulwark) of Iran was overthrown and you know what happened here.

The CIA built up the TALIBAN to fight the Russians and share in the profits of the pipeline planned to run from Kazak. to the ocean.

The CIA built up VENZUELA and GUATAMALA with their School of the America's training ...and you know how that turned out.

Time to abolish the CIA or end its political meddling!

Test

"It is the doom of men that they forget," as Merlin once told his protege King Arthur. And Mark has done a great job reconstructing for us an historical context for thinking about where we are in Afghanistan, how we got here, and how we should think about the decision President Obama must make on the future of US involement in that troubled country.

Mark also betrayed his Rocky Mountain high roots by not recognizing he might have received better reviews from the Post's editors had he not said a few mean (and on target) things about the Post's House Neo-con Charles Krauthammer, thereby forcing the Post's editorial staff to curb their enthusiasm so as not to incur Krauthammer's wrath.

Afganistan is a much more complicated place than this article would suggest. For an article this long, it should have had more to say. But kudos for picking an interesting topic and focusing on what to do about it today, rather than just dishing out the old Bush was Horrible/Bush was Great or Obama is the Second Coming/Obama is the Anti-Christ drivel.

Mark, there are some good reviews here. And then there are some that just seem to be trying to outdo some other phantom reviewer. Obama is so boring. Why don't you write about what really matters. Who is going to win the trash contract? What dog is at large the most. Why did the voters just pass a school bond election in a 2 to 1 margin? What really happens in Silverton in the winter? If you must tie it back to the Washington Post - then why do the people in Washington DC think of our San Juans as only existing for their entertainment? What kinds of shoes do Silvertonians wear compared to those in DC? What does DC mean to any of the locals?Has Obama ever even been here? Yeah, right.

I think this is a well-written piece, even though I disagree with your conclusion.

I'm not convinced that the Obama rhetoric during the election and even in naming McCrystal last spring was well-thought out. And I don't think he's willing to make hard decisions now, whether to staff up or pull out, because the decision will not be a popular one with his base.

Its the war fatigue, stupid.

Like Ms. Martin, Mr. Esper took a 250- to 350-word idea and stuffed it with filler. The column opened with the possibility of original thinking and freshness and never got there. Instead, we got a lot of "the problem of Afghanistan is tricky", which was already summed up with the single word "quagmire".

Yes, we know all that. So what?

What is your vision for Afghanistan?

What would you suggest to do with Karzai and his cronies?

Did you hear about the CIA and its links to the opium trade?

How about Pakistan?

A pundit must have his/her own ideas, whether we agree or not. By whining about Krauthammer and not offering any alternative, you look like an average opinionated blogger, not a contestant for America's Next Great Pundit.

There are facts in this column but there are also some mistakes (lies which are repeated all the time so that the readers accept them as facts):
1- The Taliban have nothing to do with the terror of 9/11. OBL was in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over working and financed by the CIA.
2- Alqaeda is not an organization but an extreme ideology embraced by some people in many countries.
3- There is no neutral investigation of the role of Bush/cheney in 9/11.

Any one with modest intelligence can understand that right wing extremists want to drag Obama more and more in the war they have started to bring him down. I think Obama understands that.
The right question is" How to get out of Afghanistan with minimum damage to the US and Afghanistan? This difficult question Obama has to solve ? It is not easy while the power centers of the right wing extremists are yelling.

Probably one the best articles I've read in a long time. Mark, you deserve to be writing for the NYT.

I applaud Mr. Esper's selection of topics and hope that his example will inspire the other contestants to address equally challenging subjects.

Although I agree to some extent with his point of view, I nonetheless found this editorial a bit disappointing. I can find nothing herein that is novel, unexpected, or even provocative. There are no new insights, no new proposals, and nothing to challenge established points of view.

I do not always agree with the syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff, for example, but I read his editorials without fail because they always challenge the manner in which I view the world and I always learn at least something from exposure to his thoughts. I cannot say the same for Mr. Esper's editorial, unfortunately. There is simply nothing here. Ten million people could have written this editorial.

In addition it seems to me that the composition of this editorial is unacceptable by any standard. It seems more like a recording of stream-of-consciousness than a carefully constructed and edited editorial.

This is the best article, thus far written on the Afghan War.

Out of all the paid Conservative "Hacks" at the posts, it took a contestant to hit it right on the head and who also expresses my same sentiments concerning this money and military resource eating QUAGMIRE.

Great Job, Esper!

I didn't mind that this editorial was ruminative, although it could have been shorter. Aside from the hard-liners on the right and left, there seem to be few people out there who have a clear idea of what exactly should be done about the situation in Afghanistan. History is not encouraging, which is why I particularly liked the end paragraph.

PLEASE - CAN SOMEONE WRITE ABOUT THINGS WE NEED TO KNOW?

How is it that every other industrialized country can do health care for all their people for half the cost we pay?

How do the several republicans in Congress still bleating about tax cuts propose to pay off our debts?

If we do not solve our health care problem, how will we ever restore manufacturing to this country? We can't hide $20k of insurance for every worker's family in the cost of goods sold.

How did common sense approach to desperate problems become the realm of politics?

How do leaders of other industrialized countries get high speed rail, alternative energy, green manufacturing, and energy independence?

Why are we leaving something as necessary to our entire life here on earth - like carbon footprints and how to reduce them, up to politicians?

Dear Mark (and the other nine finalists): As one of the 4790 contestants who did not make the cut, let me say that you have my profound sympathy. This is a rough audience! I was particular frosted by one judge's catty comments about anniversary journalism, while at that very moment their own Eugene Robinson is running an anniversary piece. As things are going, the WaPo will be lucky to have any contestants willing to hang around through four more rounds.

woe, a weak one. choppy, bad flow, hard to follow, like a bouncing ball. i could not finish it. the Examiner has a slot in Gaithersburg edition for this one.

I wanted to like this piece of course because it matches my politics. So I think Mark is on the side of the angels. But I give this low marks overall because he takes on a national problem with nothing personal added, really nothing to add to the debate.

All he can add are some good facts he's dug up. But it's unclear what the prison revolt was and unclear of his position initially.

Mr. Esper, your depth on this complex topic seems to be cursory at best. In the rare air of the Rockies, I'm sure this appears as black and white as you paint it, but there is significant gray that colors this stategic issue. I thoroughly enjoyed your entrance piece, but this article lacks depth, insight, and relies far too much on emotional appeal. As an aside, you lost me the FIFTH time you used the word "pundit." FIVE times in one piece?

Mark, Mark, Mark....I liked your first piece. This one, not so much. Being from a more rural area myself, I had hopes of seeing more of the tie-in of that perspective. That's your unique advantage in this contest, and I think you ought to lean on it more.

Afghanistan--I'll only take more opinion on that one from the commentators I regularly follow and already respect---and I'm putting them on notice here that that's only as an accommodation.

Here's what bothers me about your article, though:

"Reports soon emerged of a horrific "convoy of death" operated by America's Northern Alliance allies -- hundreds of Taliban prisoners had suffocated in shipping containers after the bloody revolt in Mazar-e-Sharif. But even that atrocity hardly cast a shadow on what was largely seen as a glorious and nearly painless American victory." and "The Taliban regime was, of course, appalling."
Huh? If you think you can write away that stuff, you will need to do it a lot more skillfully than that to keep me reading.
Taliban "appalling"? Maybe, but the use of the word is far more so.

This might be an interesting piece if it had been written by someone who's already established credibility. Might. As with Courtney's, I didn't read through to the end. Use the rural perspective to show me how Washington decisions affect the kind of people you know. Then you will be competing on home turf, and you can win there, just as you cannot hope to on this topic.

Well reasoned and thoughtful. Reminding us of the "sage advice" offered in the past is also very instructive, I would've preferred more of it. All in all a good column, one that unmasks the nattering nabobs of neoconservatism as the slackers that allowed the sore called Afghanistan to fester.

This is well done on the surface, but it betrays too much incomplete thinking. If it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, then the implication is that "good" and "bad" are not relevant in deciding our course. You mention the "convoy of death" organized by the Northern Alliance, but you refuse to embrace the obvious implications of the fact that this has certainly not been forgotten by anybody there, and that it was seen by many as an example of ethnic warfare.

You refuse to ask or answer the question of "what is Afghanistan." You are happy to approach the question of what we should do there as a reflection purely of the political climate here at home. For this reason, I'm sure you'd fit in brilliantly at WaPo. But a fresh voice should stand out from what has gone before, and despite your opposition to Krauthammer, in terms of how far you let your thinking take you, you just don't nearly stand out far enough for my taste.

Twenty-two paragraphs are about eight or nine too many in a column of this length. This is a column, not a campaign speech.

As to content: look, if Charles Krauthammer were an opinion mover and shaker The Post wouldn't be having this freaking contest in the first place. The Post has a lot of columnists who are there because they've been there a long time. They are stale and predictable. So, the paper is looking for fresh voices with new, interesting points of view.

"Mr. President, don't listen to right-wing pundits" isn't new, isn't fresh and isn't interesting. As I read this submission I found myself thinking about the old Gong Show television show, and not in a good way.

Congrats on being a finalist, Mark! This essay was difficult to read because of the writing style. Spend more time editing if you make it to the next round.

oh lordy. "The administration appears determined to formulate a coherent strategy that will deliver tangible results." It would have been nice if you had include exactly what piece of information (or event) the Administration was waiting on in order to make the decision.

The only thing deliberate that he is doing is hoping that that this problem will go away. Obama talked tough during the campaign. He thought he'd come in and merely ask other NATO nations for more troops and because they love him so much, they would just automatically comply. They did not.

Now, Obama is sitting there stunned thinking "Oh S@%&!"