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.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei on Wednesday said his country has not decided whether to...
10-day pause in hostilities in Lebanon began on Thursday last week. But since then, Israeli army commanders...
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he would extend the ceasefire with Iran until the country...
An image showing an Israeli soldier using a jackhammer to smash a statue of Jesus on...
