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.
It has been over seven months since Hamas and Israel came to a ceasefire agreement that...
An excavator stood on top of what used to be a house in Deir Qanoun Al-Nahr,...
Iran has destroyed $1bn worth of MQ-9 Reaper Drones, or roughly 20 percent of the US’s...
The heavy burden the US endured to defend Israel has caused the shortage of interceptors that...
