Saw this article in the Washington Post by Dr/LTC Nagl on 'success' in Afghanistan.
It's about par for the course as far as the message goes. Apparently, we're not losing in Afghanistan because!
What is surprising and what I was curious about is how completely shoddy the argument is. Its like he's not even concerned with making logically consistent arguments. It was almost like he just said, "fuck it, victory is near because I say it is."
Is this a new phenomenon? Is the war in Afghanistan of so little significance to the American public that they don't even need a real reason behind the "because" anymore?
Honestly, it seems like there's a market here for Afghan War Madlib Opinion Pieces, so these commentator can streamline the process.
Take a stab at my first draft.
We have to fight in Afghanistan because of <patriotic noun>_______. If we don't <people group> _____ will <negative verb> __________. Sure <any news story from Afghanistan in the past 2 years> ________ makes it look like we're losing, but you know what? We are <positive verb> _______.
In any event, Pakistan is dangerous because it has <war materials> _________ and <negative people group> _________ that could do something dangerous! Because Pakistan is SOOO dangerous, it's important that we continue to fight in <Afghanistan, sorry, you don't really get to chose this> _____. By fighting in Afghanistan, we stabilize Pakistan because <any reason> __________.
Just remember, if we don't fight <negative people group> _________ overseas, we will lose <any noun> _________. It's true because <any reason> __________. Naysayers might naysay, but they are wrong because I know <any prominent General/politician>___________ and they don't lie and he told me we were <positive verb> ________ in <Afghanistan/Pakistan/ or both> ____________. But you don't really care about this because <any prominent political cause> _______ is much more important than killing overseas, so just let us do what we do and shut up already.
2 hours ago