Hmmm… I wonder. What is more probable: Friedman is a graduate of the US Army’s C&GSC or AWC. Or… Friedman is an Obama campaign contributor. Just askin’ That being said, the “4 points” have just as much validity as do the contentions of Friedman.

All claims of authority aside, this is a discussion about grand strategy and whether or not it is good strategy to invade Pakistan. I suspect that the majority of non-Obama boosters with national security “chops” would say no. The fact that Islamabad is a highly unreliable “ally” doesn’t change the problematic nature of a strategic decision that forces Pakistan to openly come out in support of the other side.

Clue. Pakistan has always supported the Taliban. The Taliban owes it’s existance to the Paki intelligence services. The survival and viability of the Taliban and, by extension, Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan, is a priority national security goal for Islamabad.

About Obama. Why, on issues of national security, does he always come off as a naked short-seller? He’s never had any “skin” in the game.

“Brandon Friedman served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division in Afghanistan and Iraq. In March 2002, he led a rifle platoon into Afghanistan’s Shah-e-Kot Valley in order to engage Taliban and al Qaeda fighters as part of Operation Anaconda–a battle later written about by award-winning journalist Sean Naylor in Not a Good Day to Die. A year later, Brandon commanded a heavy weapons platoon during the invasion of Iraq. He led troops during combat operations in Hillah, Baghdad, and Tal Afar. Brandon eventually left active duty in 2004, after having spent the latter half of his Iraq tour as an executive officer in the northern part of the country as the insurgency intensified. He was awarded two Bronze Stars for his service in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Do you have comparable experience?

Regards, C