Somewhere else, the point is made that "it is a politician that is elected". The way to lead is to get into office and for a politician election is the primary thing.

Regarding Afghan and Pakistan, my impression is that bin Laden and those who shelter and hide him are important figures to any new government. Bush at one time proclaimed his intention to "get bin Laden, whether dead or alive". Later, of course, Bush said, he had lost interest in him, "...didn't consider him to be of importance."

As for faith-based initiatives, it is possible to make a good case for that approach. By and large, it is the churches and the people affiliated with them who know the needs, and who have for a long time been serving the people with those needs. There are churches and denominations out there who make no sectarian demands on the people they serve. Which, to a certain degree, cannot be said of the human and social services. Everyone has an agenda.

"Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama's position is steely—Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward." Fareed Zakaria

Thanks for your reponse, Frank. I'm interested in dialogue and more information as well as conjecture. Conjecture is mostly what I've got. :)