Surging into Afghanistan.

In January of 2007 ex-President Bush ordered a troop surge in Iraq. 20,000 more troops were to be deployed, and tours of duty were extended.

This caused howls of protest from the Left, many who had already thrown in with the "man who pledged to end the Iraq war" -or so they chose to believe. The "America out or Iraq wing" of the Left embraced a single speech BHO made that was not even recorded at the time - as proof that he was one of them.

Fast forward to February 2009 current President Obama, has now embraced the Bush Iraq time line, having thrown 15 other Iraq war stances overboard. Further, he has ordered 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Let us call this a surge of troops. Though, they refuse too.

I do not fault Obama for this order. He campaigned on a pledge to increase American presence in Afghanistan. Nor do I fault him for the sneaky way he announced the buildup. (As an afterthought to the stimulus signing.) His week was about the economy and he played that up. "More war" would have been a buzz kill.

I do, however, fault all the pro-Obama peaceniks for their unbelievable level of denial. The fact is Obama is hashing out various plans for the troops he's sending to the region but he still has not settled on one. Sound familiar? W, Cheney, Rummy and crew pulled this stunt in Iraq.

As is too often the case, those, like me, who are generally, but not always, against interventions, are of two minds. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Still do. I think we should have fought and won Afghanistan in the first place before moving on to Iraq - which is is not a war against a government that harbored people who attacked us - but a resource war. The sickening truth about not vanquishing the Taliban in the first place is that now nuclear armed Pakistan is in peril. The drive to set up a pro American oil state in Iraq may now have horrific unintended consequences.

Do not be fooled into believing this is a change in strategy on Obama's part. This is an extension of the same strategy started by W in 2001: Control and dominate the region. Obama is fulfilling the next step. Or going backward to clean up the first, bobbled, incursion if you like that view better.

If Thomas Ricks is correct, and the Iraq war it is not winding down, it is entirely possible that in the few years we will fully engaged there and Afghanistan. The man who came to end the Iraq war will oversea a massive extension of war in general.

And why must we control the region? Simple answer: Oil. Slightly more complex answer: Oil and the need to check China, Russia, and Iran.

Have any opinion you like about this. I, myself, am torn. But getting out of the region is not on the table. The American policy argument here is purely one of where and how - not why and when to exit - as so many on the Left want to have us believe. We are not leaving. We can't, unless we are willing to cede a massive chunk of power to Russia, China, and Iran.

Cannonfire has more on the fix we are in here.