(1) On ending the war in Iraq responsibly.

He states that

Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

Victory in Iraq is being defined as leaving Iraq to an Iraqi government that can stand on it's own, and beat back insurgents, AQI, and miscellaneous dead-enders.

There is, of course, a catch in this definition.  If you recall the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan, you will notice the similarity of that outcome to that which is being sought here.  The Soviets left Afghanistan to an Afghan government (led by Najibullah) that was able to sustain itself for a fairly long time (from Feb 1989 till mid 1992).  By Sen. Obama's definition, the Soviets were victorious in Afghanistan.  The world, of course, knows differently.

The catch, of course, is the degree to which sectarian (and other forms of) violence can be controlled by the Iraqi government, and by the time duration in which this Iraqi government is able to sustain itself and provide for peace and prosperity for it's people.  The Soviet venture in Afghanistan is deemed by most people to have been a fiasco even though it's favored successor (the Communist regime of Najibullah) managed to hang on for another 3+ yrs.

Every government, and all forms of government, falls eventually.  And there is always some deadender, or some terrorist that creates havoc.  Shangri-La is not the definition of true success.

But neither is the post-Soviet Afghanistan (which was followed by the Taliban and al Quaeda, as we all know)!

(2) On finishing the fight against Al Quaeda and the Taliban

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring 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. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.

I have highlighted the sentences that I agree with very strongly.  My Mother grew up in the tribal regions of Western Pakistan, and I am very familiar with that region's history (even though I have never been there myself).  I agree very strongly with Sen. Obama's identification of the problem.

I fear, however, that he understates the degree of difficulty.  The Afghan-Pakistan region has historically been the graveyard of several empires.  The Soviets were the most recent, but even the Brits had trouble there before that (and by comparison, the Brits had a cakewalk in Iraq).  Going further back in history, there have been only 2 foreign occupiers who can claim to have had some success in Afghanistan.  

The first one was Alexander the Great.  And even Alexander had some trouble in Afghanistn.  After Alexander's death, one of his Generals (Seleucus), took control of the eastern lands and founded the Seleucid dynasty. Under Seleucus, the Greek army stayed behind in Afghanistan.  Modern day Afghans are descended from this lineage (regrettably, I myself am not descended from Alexander!).  

The Afghan soil was visited by another army led by another great General: Genghis Khan, the only man to have truly conquered most of the world.  Genghis Khan's descendants setup shop in Afghanistan, and eventually set up one of the greatest dynasties of the world ~the Mughals.

The point of all this rambling is to underscore the fighting blood in the Afghans, and the degree of difficulty faced by previous Generals in Afghanistan.  The Afghans have been living by their code for over 20,000 years.  Their code revolves around hospitality, revenge and tribal honor.  As such, they are either your best friend, or your worst enemy.

Thus, historically speaking, the US is much more likely to succeed in Iraq, than it is to succeed in Afghanistan:  (1) I am certain that neither Sen. Obama, nor Sen. McCain (or Pres. Bush, for that matter) can measure up to Alexander the Great, or to Genghis Khan.  (2) It is impossible to defeat someone (or a people) who refuse to accept defeat.... you can destroy/annihilate them, or you can walk away.

(3) Securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states

This is a goal that cannot be sustained unless it is modified to include a moral element to it.  Under current nuclear control regimes, some states are deemed nuclear states, and other states non-nuclear states.  Unless all states give up the right to nuclear weapons, noone should be asked to.  I would have been fine if Sen. Obama had limited himself to terrorists.

Since he includes rogue states in his mixture, I would like to know what constitutes a rogue state.  Are Iran, Iraq and N Korea (the Axis of Evil) rogue states ?  Is Syria a rogue state ?  What about Pakistan.  or India ?  or Israel ??

And if these are rogue states, what can they do to stop being rogue states ?  The answer cannot be "give up your nukes and you will stop being rogue states" because that is a Catch 22.  Could Sen. Obama answer the following hypothetical question:

"I am a state, and I would like to have nuclear weapons because I feel threatened by the US presence in my region.  At the same time, I do not want to be classified as a rogue state, thereby precluding me from having nuclear weapons (which I feel are essential to my defense).  What should I do ?"

Sen. Obama provides some guidance in this statement: "We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror.  Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States."

Presumably, all nations that support terror are classified as rogue states.  But what is the definition of "terror"?  And what happens if a nation (say Iran) temporarily suspends it's support of terror ?

Most Indian's will insist that Pakistan (which also has nuclear weapons) supports terror, as a state policy.  Most Indians (when they are being honest about it), will admit that India has also supported terror in the past.  Some Israelis will admit (once again, when they are being honest), that their nation was founded with a large dose of terror.

And we all know about China's reign of terror in 1989.  Or Russian terror in Chechnya.  And what about American terror on the Nez Perce Indians.  

(4) Achieving energy security

Sen. Obama provides some details here

I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe.

Now, I believe that any investment in solar/wind/renewables is a good thing.

However,

$150 billion over 10 years is about $15 billion/year.  This seems like a trifling amount when compared to the magnitude of the problem.  One metric of the magnitude of the problem is the amount of money flowing to hostile nations.  As Sen. Obama puts it, "We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil".  This corresponds to $255.5 billion/year, or about 17 times greater than his proposed investment).

Secondly,  
I wish he had clarified how much (out of the total of $150 billion) he intends to spend on clean coal, and how much on solar/wind and biofuels.  I can imagine the clean coal lobby, and I can imagine the solar/wind lobby, and I can imagine how that $15 billion will be broken down.  

(5) Rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The biggest challenge we face is global warming.  Sen. Obama had some thoughts on this while discussing his 4th goal, but I will discuss it here

I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.

It is fine to have an aspirational goal of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050.  This is better than the current aspirational goal of a 50% cut by 2050, as laid out in the recent G8 summit.  But I need more than an aspirational goal ~ I do not need details, but I need some sense of how that goal will be approached.

And so, I need some answers to the followign questions:

(a) will individuals and corporations, and states, be asked to curtail their emissions by 80% from current levels (or 1990 levels) ?

(b) or will individuals and corporations, and states, be asked to curtail their emissions by (less than)80% from 1750 levels. ?

The difference, of course, is that in 1750, there was not that much discepancy in per-capita emissions between different states.  There is a huge discrepancy today!

The average American produces 10x more CO2 than the average Chinese, and about 20X more CO2 than the average Indian.  By rights, the average American should be asked to curtail emissions by much more than 80%.

Is Sen. Obama prepared to advocate this position to the people he wishes to lead ?

Or, will Sen. Obama ask the Indians and the Chinese to accept a substantially higher American per capita emissions ?  And, if he does that, what will he do if they rebuff him (as they most certainly will).  How does he propose to rebuild alliances with that as a backdrop ?