We have entered a new stage in George Bush's war. And now Barack Obama - who bragged, as a candidate, about his vote against the Iraq invasion, and who promised to bring change - is embracing yet another of the Bush policies, even some of the same language.

We will "finish the job."

Our commitment will not be "open-ended."

There will be "benchmarks."

This is a great tragedy, most especially for the American troops, the allied troops, the Afghans who will die as a result of Obama's decision. And it is a tragedy for us all.

Many Americans -and many people in Europe - have grown tired of the war and its costs. And it is a dangerous thing indeed for a president to commit a nation to military action without the people behind him.

If there were an honorable, achievable purpose, we could accept the costs as we mourn the losses. But what "job" is it we're finishing? Capturing Osama bin Laden? "Defeating" Al Qaeda? Only about 100 Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan now, according to numerous media reports. The rest have crossed into Pakistan. Will we send troops there to track them down and finish them off?

Obama's goal is to turn over the security of Afghanistan to Afghans as soon as possible, but many analysts say the Afghan police and military are nowhere near ready for the job. "The existing Afghan ‘army,'" the Times' Frank Rich wrote earlier this fall, "is small, illiterate, impoverished, and as factionalized as the government."

There is no way to avoid civilian casualties in a war, and in this war, those casualties bolster both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Many Afghans already view us as occupiers, and increasing our military involvement will feed Afghans' growing hostility toward us.

The Obama administration says we must "stabilize" Afghanistan and Pakistan in the interest of national, regional, and international security. But there is absolutely no guarantee that the United States has the ability to stabilize any country - certainly not a country with a corrupt government. It's just as likely that our continued military presence will contribute to the destabilization of that complex region. This is the unilateralism, the ignorance of history, that marked the Bush administration.

And while we shortchange economic stimulus efforts at home and fret about the rising cost of health care, while states slash education funding, we spend $30 billion a year to kill and maim people in Afghanistan. And we are preparing to spend more.

President Obama has been trapped, certainly. Republicans have pushed hard for the troop increase, and their efforts were bolstered by General Stanley McChrystal's plea for more soldiers. If he ignored McChrystal's advice, this president, who never served in the military, would be accused of being weak. And that, Gary Wills suggested in a brief, poignant piece in the current New York Review of Books, would doom him to a one-term presidency.

Wills is likely correct. But if deciding to pull out cost Obama a second term, it would be a small price to pay for a courageous decision.

Instead, the president has decided to draw us further into the tragedy. Members of Congress could, of course, refuse to fund his request. They, like him, must run for office again, however. And so politically, McChrystal-lite may be the best decision. But it is not the right decision.

Until this week, the conflict in Afghanistan has been George Bush's conflict. Now, it belongs solely to Barack Obama.

"It is unlikely," wrote Garry Wills, "that we will soon have another president with the moral and rhetorical force to talk us out of a foolish commitment that cannot be sustained without shame and defeat." Barack Obama has considered that possibility and declined.

This is a time for mourning.

Local anti-war activists are holding a rally at 3:30 on Friday, December 4, at Blue Cross Arena, to protest the troop build-up in Afghanistan. They'll march to the Federal Building on State Street at 4:30. Do show up.