ARTICLE: U.S. to Protect Populous Afghan Areas, Officials Say, By THOM SHANKER, PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER, New York Times, October 27, 2009

Okay:

President Obama's advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.

But I don't get why this is considered the "middle way." Everything I heard and everybody I talk to basically said this is the essence of McChrystal's plan in the short term, with the obvious hope to expand later on. We fiddle with the troop numbers--fine. Everybody declares we'll still kill AQ in Pakistan--like that was ever coming off the table.

I will go with Cheney's criticism on this one: a lot of dithering to come up with the same basic plan and call it "consensus." Plus a conscious low-balling on the necessary numbers and no real effort yet displayed to regionalize the solution over the longer-term.

To me, that's a lot of sturm und drang with little-to-no innovation.

My, what a crucial debate!

This reminds me of the surge debate on Iraq: basic military line adopted after a lot of hot air expended, with the politicians claiming deep impact. I am not impressed.