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.
The latest wave of anxiety followed a statement by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz, who warned...
Israeli forces killed at least eight people, including three women, in air strike on southern Lebanon,...
Iran says it's suspending talks with U.S. if Israel does not halt its expanding offensive in...
Could it be that Israel’s 30-year narrative about Iran - one that persuaded US President Donald...
