What are our Afghan options?

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has criticized the Obama Administration's support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

That begs the question: what's our alternative? Friedman was already on record advocating a decrease of American involvement in Afghanistan. George Will goes perhaps a bit further: "America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units."

They might be right. But it seems to me that Friedman and Will are looking for a clean solution in a region where things are always messy. I'm not happy with the notion that the U.S. must be the world's policeman. However, I'm not prepared to abandon the war we were drawn into on September 11, 2001.

By continuing our military involvement in Afghanistan are we throwing good money (and lives) after bad?

The war that was less necessary for us to fight, the one in Iraq, seems (cross your fingers) as though it's headed toward a good solution. But that doesn't decrease the degree to which it was necessary to go to war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Our situation in Afghanistan is a classic dilemma, in the sense that none of the alternatives constitutes a good answer. That includes withdrawal. I'm willing to give Troop Surge II a chance.