Now there is just the claim that our enemies are winning, with the call to retreat not far behind I'd guess:
The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come.
Come on, people. Of course our casualties are higher. Our troop strength is far higher than it was just a couple years ago. And we are sending those troops after the enemy.
NATO's supreme commander thinks we'll win despite the difficulties:
"I am confident we will win in Afghanistan. There will be some good days and there will be some bad days, some big challenges," Stavridis — the first Navy admiral to command NATO's military headquarters — said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Yet whether we will win or lose depends on what our objective is. I continue to believe it is a mistake to try to create a strong central Afghan government that will just be seen by the provincial tribes as just another foreign government.
Blankley agrees at least on that point:
If we insist on our current policy of trying to prop up an inevitably corrupt and feeble Kabul central government and supplant the traditional tribal leaders with a national army and 100,000 American troops in the field, it all will end in tears.
We should support the tribes that have cheerfully and courageously driven out all foreign intruders for thousands of years, not try to build a national government that they will equally cheerfully massacre -- as they have for thousands of years.
We have a role in winning the war if we try to win the right thing. But relying on US and central government forces is a mistake.
