@msolga,
I've had immediate fears too that things may get worse - especially with the conjunction of this event with the Gaddafi hit (or error). But my more optimistic self is winning in the meantime, though it's early yet to judge.
I was somewhat thrown by the tv program I watched last night, thrown because I'm not used to tv news in general anymore. I ended up watching msnbc online in the lead up to Obama's speech. Haven't seen Andrea Mitchell or Brian Williams in years, eh. They didn't bother me. But there were three (or more) other speakers.
Oddly, at least two of them seemed to talk with a manner of opening their mouths wide to be sure to be understood... making me think of 'talking heads'. One of the three was a woman talking about the psychological effects of this on Afghanistan and the taliban, and my reaction was that as an expert she was pretty one-sided, that she didn't seem to understand the taliban at all; didn't catch her name. One was Richard Engle, whom I haven't heard before, quite rah rah, understandable. Both of those people took a tact that this would elevate the morale of our fighting men so they can continue their fight. I am glad their mood would be elevated, but I would hope that this brings into more question re why are we staying in Afghanistan and so to accelerate bringing them home. The third guy was a pentagon rep, and I didn't have any particular twinges re what he said.
I guess my perplexity is that we have de facto made the taliban the enemy - or have we. Not that I'm for the taliban but I don't take it that they are why we have been there, exactly.
Further, are we going to hang around in both Iraq and Afghanistan basically as a presence behind the covert ops to get splinter al qaida groups? to mediate civil wars? to protect our investments? Are we in Afghanistan mainly because Pakistan has nukes?
Edits to add that I haven't read the thread's last five pages yet.