"Every day seems to widen the gap between the goals the United States is seeking to achieve in Afghanistan and its ability to achieve them. Even apparent progress, like the Strategic Framework Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, seems more a warning on the inability to define specific goals, milestones, and resources—coupled with growing restraints on U.S. military action—than an accomplishment." Cordesman - CSIS
The "Strategic Framework" is clever. It is not a treaty. It has no details. It promises nothing but an "enduring partnership." Ever heard of the "Rio Treaty?" No? It is document signed just after World War 2 that "ties together" the countries of the western hemisphere in a "strategic" relationship that requires nothing but consultation. When convenient it provides a basis for action. When it is not convenient... Perfidy is a technique of statecraft.
Today on "Chuck" Todd's morning expedition into Washington insiderhood, the VP's National Security advisor responded to Todd's questioning about the "Strategic Framework' by explaining that it really does not commit the US to anything specific.
With this piece of paper BHO has neatly outflanked the Republicans on the Afghanistan issue. The neocon wing of the party is "woofing" its support for a new "Raj" in Central Asia. McCain, Lieberman (nominal independent) and Lindsay Graham are in extasy (for the moment). The Mayberry/Teaparty wing is befuddled, torn between primitive nationalist fervor and a deep seated racist hatred of BHO.
Clever. BHO will "woof woof" back at the Republicans on this issue until Novermber. After that, anything could happen. It was once said that President Thieu of the RVN should be found a job, something like a federal judgeship on Guam. I suppose Karzai would rather live closer to his money somewhere.
One problem that will arise is that the neocons, believing that "de day ob jubilo am com" for their revolutionary hopes would "carry on" something awful if BHO does not play their game after the election here. pl