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.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he’s drawing up a “comprehensive plan” for how Kyiv believes the...
Dr. Adam Hamawy, a U.S. doctor and former U.S. Army combat surgeon who is currently in...
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has replaced the commander of the Joint Forces Command of Ukraine’s military, after...
Sunday marks six months since the start of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, which began Oct. 7...
