Afghanistan has changed names over the 23 centuries since, but it's still a land-locked knot of mountains prone to droughts, blizzards, and floods.
Alexander in Afghanistan
Map of Afghanistan
Today bounded by Iran, Pakistan, China, and former Soviet republics, Afghanistan is nearly three times as big as Minnesota and its population is more than five times larger. Alexander in Afghanistan
Afghanistan is not a 'nation' in the sense we're used to, with its four major regions centered around cities that are closer to other countries than they are to each other.Alexander in Afghanistan
And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.
--Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The Apparently Insoluble Problem that is Afghanistan
Can it be solved as Alexander the Macedonian solved the problem of the Gordian knot?
You know, where there was this knot, so complicated that no one could unravel it--until Alexander came to try and solve that knotty problem. Did he ponder and ponder to try and figure out how the knot was tied?
He took his sword and cut the knot.
To apply this solution to Afghanistan, the problem of Taliban and al Qaeda, the U.S. would have to stop trying, first of all, to unravel the problem not where the knot only appears to be--in Afghanistan--but do so in Pakistan.
But Pakistan's government is helping us (supposedly, off-and-on, what-have-you), keeping the Taliban in check. What part Pakistan's ISI (Interservice Intelligence) plays in that charade (at least a partial if not wholly a one), can be speculated upon.
So, the only way to solve the problem, if we want to follow the example of Megalos Alexandros and cut the knot instead of agonizing over it, trying to solve an unsolvable problem. You see, the knot in Pakistan has no ends to take up and start the unravelling process.
The point is that if the U.S. hits Pakistan in Waziristan or the tribal areas [whatever the uncontrolled territories are called], Pakistan could respond (they have nuclear power).
The Alexander-Gordian-knot method cannot be applied, without risk, to theAfghanistan problem in Pakistan.
Hugh Fitzgerald takes a lesson from Tolstoy's War and Peace, from how the Russians dealt with Napoleon and his Grand Armee:
The lesson is: do not be afraid not to fight, but to leave the enemy to disintegrate on his own, either from natural forces, or from man-made ones.
Kutuzov refused after Borodino to engage Napoleon’s forces. And that is the story that Tolstoy tells in the “War” chapters of “War and Peace.” It’s a book not often read through. It’s not a book, as far as I know, on the syllabus at West Point. But the lesson or moral that one can draw from the example of Kutuzov nowadays is one that American forces, and other Infidel military men who were engaged in Iraq, or are now engaged in Afghanistan, might study with profit. The lesson is not: let Winter, or let the Weather, be factored in. That’s too narrow. The lesson is: do not be afraid not to fight, but to leave the enemy to disintegrate on his own, either from natural forces, or from man-made ones.
During the Musharraf years, with the billions from America now pouring in, the government and military in Pakistan continued to string the Americans along. There were occasional half-hearted largely feigning attacks, by the Pakistan military, on Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but mainly the Pakistan government and press did everything it could to deny that Al Qaeda was either in Pakistan or being aided by a great many Pakistanis.
see "Robert Gates, Pakistan & The Pressler Amendment"
by Hugh Fitzgerald (September 2009)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/46658/sec_id/46658
It was only when the American military was becoming absolutely fed up, and when, too, the local Taliban leaders decided a bit too prematurely to take on the rich zamindars in the parts of Pakistan -- e.g. the Swat Valley -- that they conquered, that the ruling class in both the Pakistani government and military realized that the Taliban were a threat to them. They then turned on the Taliban, not as a favor to the Americans, but in order to preserve the position of themselves and of those like them. That did not make them the friends of the Americans, or of the Indians, or of any other Infidel group. They remain Muslims, in a country almost entirely Muslim, where non-Muslims can be harassed, persecuted, even murdered at will.
he apparently has a great deal of trouble remembering exactly how the government of the United States was betrayed, and betrayed again, by Pakistan, led by the nose, and led by the nose before, and then after, the Pressler Amendment was passed. His statement of August 13th about Pakistan having good reasons to “mistrust” the United States because America “walked away from them twice” -- the sheer utter idiocy of it all, the rewriting not of ancient history but of recent history -- simply amazes. The Pressler Amendment was passed because members of Congress were fed up with the behavior of Pakistan. The long discussion by Senator Glenn that took place at hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1992, some seven years after the Pressler Amendment were passed, were prompted by a realization, and disgust, that the American government had not been diligent in enforcing the letter, or being vigilant about the spirit, of the Pressler Amendment.
We did not “walk away” from Pakistan. The government, that is, the military who essentially have always held power in Pakistan, took and took whatever aid they could cajole out of the Americans, and then always came back for more. They took whatever economic aid they could as well, and that economic aid allowed the “failed state” -- always on the brink of bankruptcy -- of Pakistan to nonetheless not only quietly arrange for stealing nuclear secrets from the West, but pay the enormous costs of the nuclear weapons program that led to the building not of one but of dozens of “Islamic bombs,” as they were proudly called, and not only in Pakistan.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/46658/sec_id/46658
What concerns me personally about Afghanistan are those who will bear the brunt of our (Obama's really) Afghan policy. Marines with whom I come in contact every day, the young men who will be going there to fight. Will they be sent on impossible missions? To befriend the Afghans in the hope that the population will support Americans (and NATO) against the Taliban?
*****************
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html:
On Afghanistan:
Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. In addition, we run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.
Comment: Protecting our own forces at the risk of causing "civilian casualties" or "unnecessary collateral damage." We should protect our own armed forces first. Casualty-riddled fighting forces do not impress a local population that look to these forces for protection.
I believe we must interact more closely with the population and focus on operations that bring stability, while shielding them from insurgent violence, corruption, and coercion.Comment: One would think that less armor, such as the earlier Humvees in Iraq gives rise to more American casualties. But then, we've gone in for staying off the Afghan roads for fear of IEDs and gone slogging up the mountains and down the dales of Afghanistan. All to "protect the Afghan civilian population."
***
Better force protection may be counterintuitive; it might come from less armor and less distance from the population.
Marine in Helmand with 120 pounds plus a mortar plate
from The Captain's Journal
. . . a blog that contains facts, analysis, and opinions re the war in Afghanistan
. . . to "protect the Afghan civilian population." Do you think that such "civilian population" will ever get to love us--our fighting men--the United States?
Does anyone fighting the "insurgents--called INS instead of "Moslems on jihad,'" --does anyone in our government, in our military, fighting Islamic terror and the ideologically-demanded "war against the infidel, the kafur," know what makes Islam tick? Do they--our leaders, military as well as civilian"--know the dictum given by one Mohammed to his followers 13 centuries ago.
If they had, they would have and would now pay more attention to the koran and ahadith to learn what Moslems had in store for us, their so-called "unbelievers."
The author of the Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright takes the title of his book from the fourth sura of the Koran, which bin Laden repeated three times in a speech videotaped just as the hijackers were preparing to fly. The video was found later, on a computer in Hamburg:
“Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower.”
____________________________________
*THE LOOMING TOWER
Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. By Lawrence Wright
Illustrated. 469 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. .
_______________________________________
http://islamicdanger2u.blogspot.com/2009/09/plot-against-america.html
from The Plot Against America
Would any in our government, in our military, been able to connect the "Looming Tower" statement quoted by Osama bin Laden with what was to happen to the World Trade Center Towers? I doubt it.
Bill Warner of Political Islam, in his post "The Higher You Go, The Less they Know," says the following:
Here are two examples of ignorance at the highest levels. General Stanley McChrystal gave his assessment
of the war in Afghanistan. He gives us exceptional false insights. Insights that should be brilliant because his report included advice from “a multidisciplinary assessment of the situation in Afghanistan”.
It turns out that the “right” name for our enemy is “insurgents”, not jihadists, but insurgents.
A more forceful and offensive StratCom approach must be devised whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS (insurgents) from the vast majority of the Afghan population.
Where does the military get its multidisciplinary assessment? Certainly they haven’t received information from anyone who knows the doctrine of political Islam. http://www.politicalislam.com/store/category/primary-doctrine-books/
At times McChrystal hints that he might understand what is happening.
“Many describe the conflict in Afghanistan as a war of ideas, which I believe to be true.”
However, no where in the 20,000 word report is there a single sentence devoted to the mind of jihad. The j word does not even occur. You have to read between the lines to fathom that Islam is involved. Instead, we have talk about “culture.” McChrystal is ignorant about Islam and the jihad he is trying to defeat.
An individual (from a private communication) who gives briefings on Islam to the military says that generals do not have any understanding about political Islam, nor do they even want to know. The lieutenant colonels and lower, understand the problem, but not the flag rank.
Know the enemy, know yourself; your victory will never be endangered.
--Sun Tzu, The Art of War
It matters little whether you are from the left or the right, dhimmi-wit leaders rule. The oddest thing is that having knowledge about political Islam means that you will be called a right-winger. Is knowledge conservative? Is ignorance liberal? Why can’t knowledge transcend politics?http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-higher-you-go-the-less-they-know/
Taliban Leader
His Taliban and Al Qaeda are both on the same path: That of Jihad
Both Taliban and Al Qaeda Must Be Destroyed!
Without Pakistan's Support, Taliban can be Neutralized as it was after we first hit Afghanistan to make it no longer the refuge for Al Qaeda
Al Qaeda is now in Pakistan territory. I leave it up to you to figure out how to repeat the first successful destruction of its strongholds
Taliban in Afghanistan is supported by Pakistan's ISI. Without that support, it remains to repeat the first removal of the Taliban from power by manipulation of internal Afghan centers of power.
BUT Obama had said he wanted to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, not the Taliban. There is a difference, in the two Islamic entities' goals. As Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader said: " . . . they [Al Qaeda] have set jihad as their goal, whereas we [the Taliban] have set the expulsion of American troops from Afghanistan as our target. This is the common goal of all the Muslims.”
"The people themselves have risen up to fight the Americans,” the statement [from Mullah Omar] continued. “Nobody can tolerate this kind of subjugation and sacrilege of their culture and religion. It would be humiliating for anybody to think that the nation does not want to evict American forces. No nation can accept the dictates of a handful of dollar-greedy and treacherous people.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/world/asia/05taliban.html
Taliban Leader Promises More Afghan War
American officials say they believe that the Taliban leadership in Pakistan still gets support from parts of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interservices_intelligence/index.html?inline=nyt-org
The Pakistan’s military spy service. The ISI (InterService Intelligence) has been the Taliban’s off-again-on-again benefactor for more than a decade, and some of its senior officials see Mullah Omar as a valuable asset should the United States leave Afghanistan and the Taliban regain power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=1
[see APPENDIX for more thoughts about Pakistan]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=1
So where is the crux of the problem? Where do you strike--with a sharp blade--to cut the Gordian knot that is Afghanistan? Surprisingly (to me) Vice President Biden came up with an answer:
"Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.Obama Considers Strategy Shift in Afghan War
“A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. “Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?
So where is the crux of the problem? Where do you strike--with a sharp blade--to cut the Gordian knot that is Afghanistan?
Where is "The Center of Gravity" in this battle for control of "hearts and minds" of the Afghans?
. . . a center of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed.
--Carl von Clausewitz, On War
Where is this "center of gravity?" Biden's strategy appears to be dealing with this problem when he suggests that the "center of gravity" of the struggle can be found in Pakistan.
The entire Pakistan situation, delicately balanced as it is, must be considered if we were to stop allowing the Pakistani government sometimes apparently forceful, other times half-hearted, effort to control Al Qaeda and the Taliban within Pakistan's border.
The answer to the Afghan problem lies in Pakistan. This is where the Alexandrian sword must strike to cut the Gordian knot.
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Compared
[Sara Palin] weighs in on the need to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if we succeed in those countries we will have used our blood and treasure to put into place two constitutions that begin with the statement that Sharia law is the foundation of government. Sharia law is based upon ethical dualism and making the kafir submit in all political matters. This is insanity to support since Sharia law should be opposed in all ways at all times by all kafirs.
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-higher-you-go-the-less-they-know/
Looking back at Iraq, where a surge and getting the population on our side appears to have worked (see Anbar Province), the same strategy would appear to offer like success if exported to Afghanistan.
Therefore, when I have won a victory, I do not repeat my tactics but respond to circumstances in an infinite variety of ways.
--Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Was the cost in lives and U.S. treasure worth the Iraq that now exists? Was Saddam an ally of Al Qaeda, who also had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the main enemy of the United States? Or was it Al Qaeda and its Saudi backers (whether governmental or not, the financing for Al Qaeda came and still comes from Saudi Arabia).
As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch so often suggested, would it have been preferable--after removing Saddam with his constant threats and annoyances to us--to let Iraq implode? The vacuum there could have been entered by Iran. If Saddam had been allowed to continue, he could have been left to provide the counter to an arising militant Iran, as he had done once before.
Letting Afghanistan disintegrate into bands of war lords and tribal divisions might be a strategy. The fear is that the Taliban could assume control of Afghanistan once again and provide safe haven to Al Qaeda.
With Al Qaeda in Pakistan destroyed, however, a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan--on jihad as Mullah Omar maintained the Taliban is--could be confined to Afghanistan and not provide an international danger. COULD, but not guaranteed. If such an Afghanistan were to offer jihad to us, it could be kept in check without massive expenditure of troops that have to worry more about Afghan "population potection" than keeping U.S. casualties as low as possible.
The Gordian knot that is Afghanistan must be cut IN Pakistan. The sword cut must be swift and decisive. And the consequences must be prepared for. No piecemeal hacking away at the problem.
BUT . . . and it's a BIG but, we must be prepared for what will happen in Pakistan If it collapses, then it creates a the possibility of a jihadist state without the ameliorating control of a U.S.-purchased President and government. A rogue jihadist state with nyclear arms presents a danger.
Might we look towards India?
.jpg)
APPENDIX I
the Problem of Pakistan
General McChrystal said in his assessment, which was made public on Monday, “Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with Al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups,” and are reportedly aided by “some elements” of the ISI.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=2
The United States ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, said in a recent interview with the McClatchy newspapers that the Pakistani government was “certainly reluctant to take action” against the leadership of the Afghan insurgency.
Pakistani officials take issue with that, adding that the United States overstates the threat posed by the Quetta shura, possibly because the American understanding of the situation is distorted by vague and self-serving intelligence provided by Afghanistan’s spy service.
A senior Pakistani official said that the United States had asked Pakistan in recent years to round up 10 Taliban leaders in Quetta. Of those 10, 6 were killed or captured by the Pakistanis, 2 were probably in Afghanistan and the remaining 2 presented no threat.
“Pakistan has said it’s willing to act when given actionable intelligence,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. “We have made substantial progress in the last year or so against the Quetta shura.”
Pakistani officials also said that a move against militant leaders in Quetta risked inciting public anger throughout Baluchistan, a region that has long had a tense relationship with Pakistan’s government in Islamabad.
Mullah Omar, a reclusive cleric, recently rallied his troops with a boastful message timed for the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr.
In the message, he taunted his American adversaries for ignoring the lessons of past military failures in Afghanistan, including the invasion of Alexander the Great’s army.
And he bragged that the Taliban had emerged as a nationalistic movement that “is approaching the edge of victory.”
Pakistan will respond--and they have nuclear power.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/36181/sec_id/36181
The Alexander-Gordian-knot method cannot be applied, without great risk, to theAfghanistan problem.
Hugh Fitzgerald takes a lesson from War and Peace, from how the Russians dealt with Napoleon and his Grand Armee:
The lesson is: do not be afraid not to fight, but to leave the enemy to disintegrate on his own, either from natural forces, or from man-made ones.
Kutuzov refused after Borodino to engage Napoleon’s forces. And that is the story that Tolstoy tells in the “War” chapters of “War and Peace.” It’s a book not often read through. It’s not a book, as far as I know, on the syllabus at West Point. But the lesson or moral that one can draw from the example of Kutuzov nowadays is one that American forces, and other Infidel military men who were engaged in Iraq, or are now engaged in Afghanistan, might study with profit. The lesson is not: let Winter, or let the Weather, be factored in. That’s too narrow. The lesson is: do not be afraid not to fight, but to leave the enemy to disintegrate on his own, either from natural forces, or from man-made ones.
During the Musharraf years, with the billions from America now pouring in, the government and military in Pakistan continued to string the Americans along. There were occasional half-hearted largely feigning attacks, by the Pakistan military, on Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but mainly the Pakistan government and press did everything it could to deny that Al Qaeda was either in Pakistan or being aided by a great many Pakistanis.
from http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/46658/sec_id/46658
It was only when the American military was becoming absolutely fed up, and when, too, the local Taliban leaders decided a bit too prematurely to take on the rich zamindars in the parts of Pakistan -- e.g. the Swat Valley -- that they conquered, that the ruling class in both the Pakistani government and military realized that the Taliban were a threat to them. They then turned on the Taliban, not as a favor to the Americans, but in order to preserve the position of themselves and of those like them. That did not make them the friends of the Americans, or of the Indians, or of any other Infidel group. They remain Muslims, in a country almost entirely Muslim, where non-Muslims can be harassed, persecuted, even murdered at will.http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/46658/sec_id/46658
he apparently has a great deal of trouble remembering exactly how the government of the United States was betrayed, and betrayed again, by Pakistan, led by the nose, and led by the nose before, and then after, the Pressler Amendment was passed. His statement of August 13th about Pakistan having good reasons to “mistrust” the United States because America “walked away from them twice” -- the sheer utter idiocy of it all, the rewriting not of ancient history but of recent history -- simply amazes. The Pressler Amendment was passed because members of Congress were fed up with the behavior of Pakistan. The long discussion by Senator Glenn that took place at hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1992, some seven years after the Pressler Amendment were passed, were prompted by a realization, and disgust, that the American government had not been diligent in enforcing the letter, or being vigilant about the spirit, of the Pressler Amendment.
We did not “walk away” from Pakistan. The government, that is, the military who essentially have always held power in Pakistan, took and took whatever aid they could cajole out of the Americans, and then always came back for more. They took whatever economic aid they could as well, and that economic aid allowed the “failed state” -- always on the brink of bankruptcy -- of Pakistan to nonetheless not only quietly arrange for stealing nuclear secrets from the West, but pay the enormous costs of the nuclear weapons program that led to the building not of one but of dozens of “Islamic bombs,” as they were proudly called, and not only in Pakistan.
"Robert Gates, Pakistan & The Pressler Amendment"
by Hugh Fitzgerald (September 2009)
APPENDIX II
Insufficient Numbers of Marines
BY Herschel Smith
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/09/27/insufficient-numbers-of-marines/
Comments
On September 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm, DesertPete45 said:
So if I understand this cerebral text, which I am getting damn sick of, it is that it doesn’t matter how many Marines we have! Am I understanding this text correctly??? If so I partially agree: if our Marines, of whom my son is one in Helmand (in a Marine rifle platoon), are not allowed to kill the damn enemy because of McChrystal’s wimpy position because he is scared to death of AbomiNation and having to retire and not make as much $$$ as he is active then that is correct. We could have ten trillion Marines and the Taliban would continue to sip tea, plant IEDs at night and chill in the ville during the day with the homeboys. What the hell has happened to our military and where the HELL are the men (senior officers) in our military who would resign/retire before committing their charges to such idiocy?? And yes I do mean retire! When the HELL will our military leaders cowboy up and act like real men instead of neutered lackys??? NEVER!!!! I fear America’s glory days are gone forever and I cry over that. Dammit, my dad was wounded on Saipan, I fought in Vietnam and now my son is in A-stan and can’t defend himself!!! Our only hope is the 2010 elections, if we fail if is over and we better get ready for heavy handed govt control by the damn FOOLS inside the beltway and the wimps in this country who want the govt. to provide everything for them (impossible). Damn, can’t believe I am witnessing the dismantling of the United States of America by a neomarxist!!! Where are the MEN, where are the PATRIOTS, where are those of PRINCIPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we unfetter our Marines and provide them with air and atrillery we can win! Several weeks ago 4 Marines were killed because they were denied air and artillery by the damn egghead commanders who are scared shitless by Obama because a civilian might be killed!! What the hell, now we have 4 more dead Marines!!!!! Does no one give a damn??? Where the HELL are the men??? Are they pleased that they were simpatico with the EU, AbomiNation and probably the world court notwithstanding we lost 4 Marines!!! Well hell they weren’t the sons’ of any of those fools!!! Where the hell is the outrage???? Where the hell is the passion?? Where the hell is the anger???? We can have or cerebral discusions after we win in a quiet bar with many beers but that is not for now. Dammit, where is the fire in the belly of those who think we are hanging our guys (and gals) out to dry and they are nothing but cannon fodder for the PC crowd. Obama is uncomfortable with the use of the word victory and not sure that is necessarily the goal in A-stan, Gates doesn’t want a large military footprint, CMC is worried about our carbon footprint and Levin wants us to convince the enemy to switch sides!!!! OMG am I dreaming?? Pinch me please!!! Are these people fools or not and McChrystal says we can’t win the war with 200+ civilians killed in the last year!! What??? What about our guys?? We can’t win the war with 80% of Helmand as Taliban and Taliban sympathizers if we are not allowed to kill them!!! Karzai is a corrupt hill bandit and he has the temerity to hold us responsible for civilian deaths!! That dirty rat!! If he was a man, which he is not, he would hold the Talaban responsible but he doesn’t have the guts. He would be dead meat in 24 hours if we left. Let’s stop the academic bullshit, there is enough of that by McChrystal, CMC, Jones, Gates, Mullen and or course, OBAMA!!! Did I miss anyone???
Respectfully submitted,
Desert Pete
USMC 1964-1968
[COMMENT at
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/09/27/insufficient-numbers-of-marines/ ]
[Bold emphasis mine. lw]
ALSO . . .
Read
What kind of counterinsurgency for Afghanistan?
by Herschel Smith
NOTE: be sure to read the COMMENTS to this article, especially the first and second, by TSAlfabet and
rrk3
and
pakistan: shafting your benefactor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/10/pakistan-shafting-your-benefactor.html
A.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
hello my friend..just because Russia didnt get it right doesnt mean we cant eh> great read!..Busy weekend for a change..hope youre doin well!!:)
ReplyDelete