Too Big to Fail? Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones

In such a situation, even good imperial gamblers would normally cut their losses. Unfortunately, in Washington terms, what's happened in Afghanistan is not the definition of failure. In the economic lingo of the moment, the war now falls into the category of "too big to fail," which means upping the ante or doubling down the bet. Think of the Afghan War, in other words, as the AIG of American foreign policy.
4 commentscategory: Military karma: 157

comments

  1. #1    Where's the article? All I got was a fundraising page.
    written by CwV since 18 days 23 hours 11 minutesCwV
  2. written by ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt since 18 days 22 hours 2 minutesARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt
  3. #3    Oh. That's a duplicate content.
    http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1045564
    written by CwV since 18 days 21 hours 45 minutesCwV
  4. #4    Obama's first move had to be to de-escalate in Afghanistan. His first action in office was to do the exact opposite - to escalate. His supporters ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to jump start the police movment right then, the only time when they would have had a chance. So that means that everyone who supports Obama CHOSE WAR, CONSCIOUSLY AND KNOWINGLY.

    So how do we walk this back? We do it by building an INDEPENDENT progressive movement. We support ONLY those democrats who are actually progressives. And where there are none (in most districts) we support greens, independents, libertarians, WHOEVER WILL CHALLENGE DUOPOLISTIC FASCISM.

    And no, I don't like Libertarians, but they are a hellofa lot better than DemoFascists or Rethuglicans.
    written by epppie since 18 days 16 hours 1 minuteepppie
closed comments

who are we
code: license, download  |  images license
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional    Valid CSS!   [Valid RSS]