by Patrick Appel

Matt Frost counters Stephen Biddle's careful case for continuing the war in Afghanistan:

If arguing for your war of choice involves all of the following: describing it as “costly, risky and worth wagingbut only barely so;” calculating “a net cost-benefit calculus perilously close to a wash;” resigning yourself to “a war whose merits skirt the margin of being worthwhile;” eschewing “clarion calls to great sacrifice for transcendent purpose;” you do not actually have a case for war. You have a policy proposal. I hope that our politicians and our generals alike can tell the difference.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.