Of course, Sid McBush, who has no plan other than to continue Dubya's failed policies, now copy cats Obama.

Into this mix, Pepe Escobar at Asia Times offers some sobering insight into the foreign and military policies that Obama is proposing.

"Obama, in a major foreign policy speech in Washington on Tuesday, outlined what he calls his "new overarching strategy". 

"He said he would "focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century". 

"To say that Obama's plan - sketched earlier in an op-ed piece for The New York Times - is more realistic, thoughtful and sensible than that of rival Republican Senator John McCain's "road to victory" in Iraq would be an understatement.

"Does Obama's proposed redeployment in Iraq automatically translate into no US troops in Mesopotamia by the summer of 2010? 

"No. It translates into "a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's security forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress." 

"So if Iraqis are in charge of their own security, one doesn't need US soldiers who, by the way, did not beat back al-Qaeda; US taxpayer's money, distributed to the Sunni Awakening Councils to the tune of US$300 a month for each former guerrilla, did. 

"Obama also does not explain how many soldiers will be part of his US "residual force" in Iraq. Hundreds? Thousands? Without speaking Arabic, with no access to local intelligence, mistrusted by local populations, what exactly would they be doing stranded in the desert sands? And who will judge who is a terrorist and who's not? The government in Baghdad or, once again, Washington?

"The problem is that, for Obama, the central front is Afghanistan. That's when he runs into trouble - when he has to tackle the "broader strategic goals".

"But Obama essentially frames the US mission in Afghanistan as a fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The problem is, the US has not captured any major al-Qaeda operative in the area for a long time. And the historical al-Qaeda leadership is ensconced either in the Waziristans or in Chitral - Pakistani tribal areas, not Afghanistan. 

"So what purpose would serve Obama's extra 10,000 US troops in search and destroy missions in eastern Afghanistan - bound to inflict inevitable, non-stop "collateral damage" to loads of Pashtun civilian peasants and villagers? 

"Even the Pentagon now openly admits it is fighting an asymmetrical war in Afghanistan against a motley crew of Taliban, disgruntled Pashtun tribal chiefs and warlords financed by US intelligence in the 1980s - from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to the Haqqanis. This has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. It's about fiercely independent Afghans refusing what they identify as foreign occupation - by the US and NATO. This is symmetrical to Sunnis and Shi'ites fighting foreign occupation in Iraq.

"Barnett Rubin of New York University, arguably the top US expert on Afghanistan, would tell Obama that the key to solve the "war on terror" is not Iraq. But it's not Afghanistan either. It isPakistan. 

"Obama seems to agree, when he says he's "co-sponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al-Qaeda". 

"But Obama seems to ignore that Pakistan is a feudal society run by roughly 50 families where the only solid institution is the army - and the intelligence services. Even the Council on Foreign Relations, in a new report on the tribal areas along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, admits "the Pakistani government lacks the political, military or bureaucratic capacity to fix the tribal areas on its own". 

"Obama for his part is unable to spell out how - with just a fistful of dollars - he'll be able to "fix" tribal areas that have been living in fierce independence for centuries. Even assuming the money would reach the tribal areas, it is not certain it would erase the structural root of "terror" - social inequality in a rugged, impoverished land.

"The current status quo in Iraq - and with at least 30,000 "residual" US troops. Withdrawal it isn't. Is this "change we can believe in", part of a new "overarching strategy" - or is this the same status quo as defined by half a century of continuous, many would say imperial, US foreign interference?" 

These are only a few of the highlights of an interesting piece about the problems and realities that the US and Obama, the next president, must deal with in both regions of the world.

This article dovetails with the piece I posted a few days ago, "Bush's Failure in Pakistan" which stated: 'So, the Bush administration put all its eggs in one basket, the basket of the haves and have mores, in Pakistan and backed the dictator, Pervez Musharraf, with millions in military funding.  Instead of assisting Pakistan with a public school system that would help poor children and decrease recruits to the Taliban, Bushites decided that money for a dictator, weapons, and warmongering were the answer.  It was an answer alright, but the wrong one."