Remember when all we talked about was Iraq?

It seems like a long time ago, does it not? Nowadays I feel like Afghanistan gets the lion share of the media coverage, which is by no means a bad thing.

These three recent columns on the state of affairs in Afghanistan--two from the Post and one from Slate--paint an interesting overall picture of the country.

Anne Applebaum sees a silver lining, and takes the candidates to task for their all-dire all-the-time assessment of the country (as I've done once or twice myself).

"But in the meantime...we haven't exactly "neglected" Afghanistan, as Barack Obama and others often say. It's just that we haven't yet faced up to what we have undertaken to do here. Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, more rugged, more impoverished and vastly more complicated, with more languages, more ethnic groups, more tribes and more-lethal neighbors. It has only begun to test our stamina."

Fred Kaplan lays out the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of a potential Afghanistan "surge". He's right to point out some key differences, but Kaplan's dismissal of significant tribal conflicts within Afghanistan betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation there. Applebaum alludes to this reality in the pull quote above.

Finally, David Ignatius bemoans the Taliban's continued ability to successfully come out on top of the Information battle. This one has particular interest to me, as public affairs and strategic messaging were part of my responsibility for the provinces I worked in. I think my team and I did good work, but as Ignatius suggests, Information operations are a part of the fight that we (the coalition) are still getting the hang of.