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.
Russia is reportedly completing a shipment of drones, medicine, and food to Iran, signaling a potential...
The Pentagon has ordered elements of the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division to deploy to the...
Iran has rejected a US proposal to end the war with the Islamic Republic, setting out...
Israel launched another wave of strikes across Iran on Tuesday, March 24, escalating its military campaign...
