Picking winners and losers in Afghanistan is flawed and dangerous. What about giving someone a pony?
Afghan troops can't read, Afghan voters can't vote, but spooks are spying more than ever.
Americans got duped into a utopian nation-building venture. It's as unethical as it is misguided.
The days of the kilt-wearing bagpiper leading the battle charge are long gone. So, too, is undivided support for the troops on the homefront. All the while, al-Qaeda remains resilient.
We are stuck watching a rerun of reminders from past wars, pushing an emotionally scarred America headlong into another quagmire.
Iraq and Afghanistan raise the question: Can we win by attempting to take cruelty out of war, especially when faced with adversaries that do not?
The Taliban are not the country bumpkins we often attribute them to be, but are capable of a sophistication that rivals our most intelligent military officers. We underestimate them at our peril.
Humpty Dumpty isn’t going to be put back together, and there's little difference between the neocon war-initiators under George W. Bush and President Obama's liberal war-expanders.
It's hard to call the surge in Iraq a true success. That doesn't bode well for Afghanistan.
Petraeus and company may talk about the "conditions" for withdrawal, but they are actually laying the groundwork to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan longer, regardless of the situation on the ground.
We should be asking the question of why we are there at all.
A number of recent events have triggered an awful lot of hypocrisy toward Israel.
Follow The National Interest