There is obviously a huge risk in sending an extra 40,000 machine-gun wielding troops into a country they don't understand to "clear" huge areas of insurgent fighters who look exactly like the civilian population, and establish "control" of places that have never been controlled by a central government at any point in their history.
To justify these risks, the proponents of the escalation need highly persuasive arguments to show how their strategy slashed other risks so dramatically that it outweighed these dangers. It's not inconceivable – but I found that in fact the case they give for escalating the war, or for continuing the occupation, is based on three premises that turn to Afghan dust on inspection.
Israel has continued its attacks on southern Lebanon, hours after ceasefire between the two countries was...
It has long been considered offensive and antisemitic to draw comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel,...
Iran has inflicted more “extensive” damage to US bases and equipment in the Middle East since...
Soldiers and officers described widespread, routine theft of belongings, including motorbikes, televisions, paintings, sofas and carpets.Despite...
