From Editor and Publisher
By Greg Mitchell

That U.S. casualties had finally hit the 500 mark in Afghanistan drew wide press attention today, including coverage on the front page of The New York Times. Every so often now, the media notes that the ongoing American death toll in that country now eclipses the grim tally in Iraq. So the war in Afghanistan, long overlooked, is now getting more notice. Polls show that the American people are growing increasingly concerned, and pessimistic about that conflict.

But does that mean the U.S., finally starting (perhaps) to dig out of Iraq, should now commit to another open-ended war not so far away?

Ah, nearly everyone in the media, and on the political stage, say, this is the “good war.” Liberals, including a certain senator named Obama, have long made political points on Iraq by stating that it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time – when we should have kept our eye on the ball in Afghanistan (and adjoining areas of Pakistan). Hell, I have made that argument myself, and it is not wrong.

We should have done that. And if we had, no doubt the situation in Afghanistan would be a lot better today, as would the overall “war on terror.”

But we didn’t, and now we are desperately trying to play catch up. So the overwhelming sentiment from American leaders, including Obama and many of his supporters, is: Take troops out of Iraq and move them (and maybe even more of them, as John McCain argues) right over to Afghanistan.

Obama has even said “we must win” there. But it’s the same question we have faced in Iraq: What does he define as “winning”? How much are we willing to expend (in lives lost and money) at a time of a severe budget crunch and overstretched military? Shouldn’t the native forces be doing more? And so on. We’ve been fighting there even longer than in Iraq, if that seems possible. Now do want to jump out of a frying pan into that fire?

Read more Afghanistan