While this video might be an accurate compressed version of uniform analyses, it strikes me as unreliable because of the chopped-up, phrase-by-phrase editing. I'm suspicious of anything this cut up, and this melange is an emotion-laden critique with little context. While the points included may be accurate, the reasoning and context are missing, particularly from the most credible voice: Gen. Clark. There is a strong current of 'Obama is wrong--we need to get out of Afghanistan and focus our military efforts on Pakistan.' This simplification overlooks so many tactical and strategic issues. A good look at a regional map shows that Pakistan's longest border is with Afghanistan. Other countries bordering Pakistan include Iran, India, Jammu and Kashmir, and China. The idea of "pulling out of Afghanistan" to focus on Pakistan would in all likelihood be both impossible AND worse than trying to put Afghanistan back together and deal with Pakistan to thwart Al Qaeda's forces there. Other than Afghanistan (on whose border with Pakistan Al Qaeda forces are busiest), the only routes TO Pakistan are through Iran, China, Kashmir (all politically and tactically impossible) and India, which would shake an already iffy truce between India and Pakistan. Without a position in Afghanistan, or cooperation from the other neighbors, the US can't get to Pakistan. And a destabilized or collapsed Pakistan would undo any progress made in Afghanistan over the last eight years in addition to putting nuclear weapons in the hands of those we oppose. As long as we're there, the people suffer. And if we leave, they'll probably also suffer, perhaps more. The question is, which choice is worse for the Afghanis and Pakistanis? When the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan under the second Bush Administration, they opened Pandora's Box and took up residence inside. A military victory in Afghanistan is still impossible--as it has been for millennia: invaders always lose in Afghanistan--eventually. Protracted war in Afghanistan led to the final collapse of the Soviet Union, bankrupted by their military expenses. I've seen no indication that this pattern is likely to change. The US is already making strikes inside Pakistan in an effort to curb Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks. Adding open war in Pakistan--a nuclear power--cannot be a strategic improvement. From my perspective, there are no good options, only some that are less dreadful than others. We broke what was left of Afghanistan, and the Pakistani government is on the brink of collapse. We are in many ways both responsible and unwelcome. Do I think additional war is the solution? No. As we did in Iraq, we may well be ahead to buy off the internal opposition (the Taliban), declare victory and leave. Does this 'news' synopsis provide thoughtful analysis on which to make a decision? Nope.