Via Spencer Ackerman, I just read John Nagl and Richard Fontaine’s op-ed from two weeks ago:

As the Obama administration debates whether to stick with the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan, opponents point to that nation’s flawed presidential election as a reason why this approach cannot work… This argument is badly flawed. Electoral fraud will render our task in Afghanistan more difficult, but it does not make counterinsurgency impossible. On the contrary, a counterinsurgency approach — and not a narrowly tailored mission focused solely on killing or capturing enemies — remains the best path to success in Afghanistan.

Ackerman’s worried by their proposal to effectively bypass the central government. I’m less so. They are being a bit too optimistic about the benefits this will be bringing to the Afghan people, and they’re certainly prettying up what the surge actually achieved in Iraq. Nevertheless, it’s one step closer to accepting that the best we can probably hope to accomplish is a loose confederation of warlord fiefdoms that more-or-less has control over its territory. Setting realistic goals is the first step to some kind of positive outcome to this whole mess.