Sometimes it's the little things in the big stories that catch your eye.

On Monday, the Washington Post ran the first of three pieces adapted from Bob Woodward's new book Obama's Wars, a vivid account of the way the U.S. high command boxed the Commander-in-Chief into the smallest of Afghan corners. As an illustration, the Post included a graphic the military offered President Obama at a key November 2009 meeting to review war policy. It caught in a nutshell the favored "solution" to the Afghan War of those in charge of fighting it - Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General David Petraeus, then-Centcom commander, General Stanley McChrystal, then-Afghan War commander, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among others.

The eye-catching detail, however, was the dating on the chart. Sometime between 2013 and 2016, according to a hesitant dotted white line (that left plenty of room for error), those U.S. surge forces would be drawn down radically enough to dip somewhere below - don't gasp - the 68,000 level. In other words, three to six years from now, if all went as planned - a radical unlikelihood, given the Afghan War so far - the U.S. might be back close to the force levels of early 2009, before the President's second surge was launched. (When Obama entered office, there were only 31,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.)

And when would those troops dwindle to near zero? 2019? 2025? The chart-makers were far too politic to include the years beyond January 1, 2016, so we have no way of knowing. But look at that chart and ask yourself: Is there any doubt that our high command, civilian and military, were dreaming of, and most forcefully recommending to the president, a forever war - one which the Office of Budget and Management estimated would cost almost $900 billion?

The War Addicts: 2016 and Then Some

It doesn't matter who the President of the United States is, the Pentagon & the military contractors call the shots. The title "Commander in Chief" is ceremonial, like "Employee of the Month" at your local Burger King.

And, if you think that's nuts, the latest estimate of the cost of Amerika's current wars is between US$4-6 trillion!!

meanwhile ..... on Crikey ....

Chris Hunter writes: Re. "Support the Afghanistan troops by bringing them home" (yesterday, item 2). Charles Richardson writes of "an illegal and pointless adventure in Iraq". Of course the same thing could be said about Vietnam, a war I misguidedly participated in. That Afghanistan follows along in similar vein raises the same old question -- if these wars are 'Illegal" then why are the perpetrators not brought to justice?

Andrew Wilkie speaks of the "illegal" war and he is now a parliamentarian. Isn't it about time these so called law breakers were outed and if found guilty, disgraced once and for all. That Afghanistan is just Vietnam without trees is patently obvious. Bush, Blair and Howard continue to enjoy the benefits of office as elder statesmen. But if they are war criminals, as is being suggested by countless commentators using the "illegal" tag, then why is this?

Surely they should be arrested and charges laid. Let them argue their case to the international court of justice. Only then will western leaders soberly consider their options before rushing off to their next "illegal" boys' own adventure.