At May's NATO summit in Chicago, some points were made clear. Afghans have two years to get their act together, backtrack, and tastefully re-embrace participatory politics. So what happens if they don't?
Until now the Administration has gotten away with a having a two-faced policy: presented to the American people as a timetable for withdrawal, but understood by the Pentagon and the Republican leadership as allowing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan forever.
Shouldn't the government have to do a cost-benefit analysis of keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for another two years, given the huge sacrifice involved? Shouldn't that be a public document that outside experts can examine?
We overthrew the Taliban regime for a good reason more than a decade ago. But there is no longer a good reason -- or a moral cause -- for killing innocents, alienating Islam, and the deaths of Americans or other allied forces.
Zalmai Rassoul's calm nature serves him well in what may be the world's hardest Foreign Minister post. Ten years after the invasion of Afghanistan, he negotiates with countries eager to get their soldiers back
Last weekend marked another grim new milestone for the war in Afghanistan: more than twice as many U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since President Obama took office than in the eight years Bush was president.
A key lesson from Iraq for Afghanistan is this: we can force the Pentagon to eat a timetable for military withdrawal, and once we've forced them to eat it, we have the ability to force them to keep it down.
After a decade of fighting, more than 2,700 coalition lives lost, and nearly half a trillion dollars spent (the equivalent of five years' worth of the federal budget for infrastructure), this has become a war without a mission -- and, thus, a war we cannot afford to continue.