Steve Clemons is baffled by the WaPo's flimsy criticism of Huntsman's Afghanistan policy:
Jon Huntsman has offered a strategically coherent view on why American force deployments to Afghanistan undermine rather than enhance American interests. He sees American power being trapped and tied down by the deployment — and that higher tier problems, like Iran, are emboldened rather than constrained by the perception of an overstretched American military. Huntsman also thinks it is irrational for the United States to spend upwards of $120 billion per year in a country with a $14 billion GDP. What is the Washington Post's rational for labeling this logic "misguided"? The Post offers no explanation at all as to why Afghanistan is strategically more significant to the US than other vital American challenges — or why Afghanistan should stand as the "Moby Dick" of the US foreign policy portfolio.