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.
On Monday, August 6, 1945, after six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities,...
In 2021, a book titled “The Human-Machine Team: How to Create Synergy Between Human and Artificial...
US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the Iranian nuclear programme and have probably...
The last plane carrying U.S. forces left Afghanistan on Monday, meeting an Aug. 31 deadline to withdraw...
