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.
US Vice President JD Vance said on Sunday that President Donald Trump had asked him to...
At least 29 people have been killed in a new wave of Israeli attacks on Lebanon...
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initiated the US-Israeli war on Iran at the end of...
The fee would effectively allow Iran to cement its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, but...
