...[F]or at least four years, there's been something of a dodge taken by liberals when discussing Afghanistan. To speak broadly, liberals have endlessly invoked the mantra that the real center of the war on terrorism is in Afghanistan, rather than in Iraq. But that's been a statement about Iraq, rather than Afghanistan. To put it a different way, liberals, I think it's fair to say, have discussed Afghanistan not on its own terms, but as a cudgel against the Iraq war.

That's by no means monolithic. A bunch of progressives - the Democracy Arsenal crew, Matt Yglesias, I daresay myself - have written about Afghanistan (TWI sent me there last year) from that perspective of first-order-national security importance. But lots of us have been content to take the safe position of rallying to the more-popular cause of the Afghanistan war as a way of insulating ourselves to charges of excessive dovishness for opposing the Iraq war. Well, as he's said all along, Barack Obama will be calling that bluff.

I'm shocked, just shocked to discover that antiwar people are - you know - antiwar, no matter what.

I never believed that most of those making these claims actually wanted us to do anything in A-stan, they simply wanted inoculation from charges of over all pacifism. I also believe the same is true about Obama. His people have already begun walking his big talk back and saying even if we send more troops it probably won't matter.

Murtha stopped well short of calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. But if the U.S. is going to remain without a clear strategic goal in south Asia, calls for withdrawal — understandably — will be a short logical step away.