This article notes this problem yet also states:
In some ways those views contradict the received wisdom on Afghanistan, described by military experts in the United States as a "forgotten war" and one America and its NATO allies will lose if they do not boost numbers and change tactics rapidly.
Yet on the ground in Afghanistan the conflict quickly shows itself to be far more nuanced, with large swathes of the country relatively stable and making slow if very cumbersome progress, while other areas -- particularly the far south -- are mired in a conflict that frequently eclipses Iraq for intensity.
I'm not sure what the author means by "received" wisdom. This is the conventional wisdom that the mooing cows of the media herd chew on and plop on their viewers and readers. Accepting the consensus view about the war of a group of people with less experience with the military than your average Cub Scout troop should be an obvious mistake. This author is at least honest enough to write about the disconnect between what he saw and what he apparently expected. May he have more moments of clarity in the cloud of his profession.
The reports coming out of Afghanistan don't support the conclusion our press has collectively drawn that we are in imminent danger of losing and only a rapid transfer of forces from Iraq can salvage the situation.
Call me cynical, but this seems like only a transparent effort to lose in Iraq rather than any commitment to winning in Afghanistan--or even accurately analyzing Afghanistan.
