President Obama - painfully - is learning that a sense of entitlement inflicts persons with liberal credentials as well as the predictable Philistines on the right. Tom Daschle, assuming he had special privileges about being taxed, eliminated himself from a Cabinet position. The sad thing for the country is that the former South Dakota senator would have been an excellent choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So his foray into lobbying and consulting and big money moved him out of contention and the nation suffers as a result. Apparently, the more money you make, the less responsible you feel about paying your share of the taxes. It is ironic that those who benefit most from the American way of life become the biggest cheaters.

I'm also somewhat troubled by the appointment of Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary - not because the New Hampshire senator is a Republican, but rather that he is in disagreement with President Obama on some basic financial issues. I also think that the "deal" made by New Hampshire Democratic Governor John Lynch to name a GOP replacement for Gregg is Blagojevich Lite...a deal without money changing hands. Let us hope that Commerce Secretary Gregg, as a member of the Obama team, can adjust some of his views with the same alacrity that Kirsten Gillibrand - another dubious selection for an appointed senate seat - has managed in New York State. Her flip-flopping is a subject for another day at another time. Let it be said that it is difficult to know what Senator Gillibrand believes in.

The non-stop TV news shows are filling up their time with these stories. Not that they aren't news...just that the pundits seem more interested in what passes for gossip than what is policy.

As a result one serious issue facing President Obama is getting minimum attention, and if handled incorrectly could define his first term. In one word it is Afghanistan.

During the campaign, it was the one issue in which I had great difficulty with Obama. He advocated moving troops from Iraq. Fine. But he wanted to move them to Afghanistan. Why and how?

Many aspects of this policy should be challenged:

1. Every time we bomb or kill a "terrorist" in Afghanistan, it seems as if a dozen civilians also die. And, as it was in Iraq where we became the best recruiting machine for Al-Qaeda, so it is in Afghanistan where we are becoming recruiting agents for the Taliban.

2. What is the motivation for fighting in Afghanistan? Are we again threatening to bring "democracy" to a nation by killing its citizens or are the reports of a strategic oil pipeline the real reason? Our military decisions seem to negate the possibility of finding alternatives to the oil that seems to motivate wars and death.

3. The Russians were in Afghanistan for years and it was their Vietnam. Their armies couldn't maneuver through the mountains and caves...just as American troops were outfoxed in the rice fields.

We should be warned.

It didn't work in Korea. It didn't work in Vietnam. It didn't work in Iraq. Thousands of young Americans have lost their lives. Thousands more have been wounded and many are homeless, abandoned and forgotten. It cost untold number of civilian lives in the countries where we fought, caused us international shame, and engendered suspicion and disrespect around the world.

Obama's election has turned the tide of worldwide opinion. They see a hopeful and intelligent man with ethics and values. Let us hope that the failures of the past will not be emulated by our new President.

There is too much work to be accomplished at home without our blundering into another military action.

I urge people of conscience to write to elected officials and the White House to raise questions about military action being expanded in Afghanistan.

Obama can survive Tom Daschle's tax folly but Afghanistan is quite another issue - one that could sink this promising presidency and our nation as well.

I’m David Rothenberg…out on a limb.