It's that last point that explains everything about the timid, tentative, and thoroughly cowardly approach taken by the Democratic party toward foreign affairs - if it can't be blamed on Bush they won't do it. Eight years of a comfortable opposition have left them so entirely reflexive that a complete paralysis has set in, and the course of action recommended by their putative strategic thinkers is (1) to refuse to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq and simultaneously (2) to imitate it in Afghanistan because they haven't any better ideas and they know it worked even if they'll never admit it.
Afghanistan is, of course, another case, and although bombing Pakistan might be a part of a plan it's hardly likely to do anything on its own but make noise and irritate people, much like the notorious blowing up of a few empty tents by Field Marshal Clinton. Redeploy a couple of brigades from Iraq to there? That isn't a mission, it isn't a strategic aim, it isn't a plan, it's waving a magic wand at the problem and hoping it goes away.
It is along these lines that I find the complete lack of military experience between the two ostensible Democratic candidates most disturbing. It's bad enough that they don't know what they're doing, but their staff doesn't know what it's doing either, and no one around them seems smart enough to listen to somebody who does, least of all the candidates themselves.
The left doesn't realize its pacifism makes it dead as a doornail, but it is. It bet against the wrong Marines.