An astute political animal, Karzai recognizes that the Afghan public long ago soured on the American military presence. And he calculates that assailing the foreigners is his best ticket to shoring up the legitimacy of his regime.
Now that the president has met Hamid Karzai concerning our future in Afghanistan, he will meet with his advisers to determine the level of U.S. involvement after the withdrawal of our main combat force. How many troops should we leave behind? The answer is simple: none.
The Obama national security team has put a happy face on the Afghan war this week for the visit of President Karzai ("We ARE making progress," Panetta...
In Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, President Obama is bringing aboard one man who opposed the surge in Afghanistan, and has long called for a drawdown, and another who quickly realized the surge was not a success, and called for a shift in strategy.
The Taliban vowed to continue fighting against American troops remaining in Afghanistan after 2014, demonstrating the need for larger number of U.S. troops to support the fragile Afghan security forces defend their nation and to prevent al-Qaeda gain grounds in the country.
Afghanistan, the country that never really was, is not about to become one tomorrow. Nor does American security depend on whether or not it does -- yet another convenient lie.
Does our government ever look at the overall picture? Nothing could be more representative of the slimy, counter-productive nature of Karzai's leadership than the bank scandal.
Afghan president Hamid Karzai's order to his forces to wrest control of Bagram prison from the U.S. highlights Afghans' growing testiness. It comes just as talks begin on new security arrangements to govern a continued U.S. military presence.
Have we, those no longer in service, met our obligations to those still serving and to those who will serve? Have we honestly and critically examined our most recent histories and reported, candidly, what we saw, what we did, what we accomplished, whether or not it was worth it and what it meant?
Last week was "women's week" in the presidential debate. But Monday's face-off moves on to foreign policy, so the women in the binders and the equal pay issue will likely be tossed in the paper shredder along with last week's talking points.
The Afghan government -- and by extension the Afghan state -- has been doomed to failure. Power is too centralized and concentrated with the Afghan president, and corruption has it rotten to the core.
As the American public's disillusionment with fighting the war deepens, the precarious support base in Congress and mainstream policy circles is dwindling. The administration cannot afford to dawdle any longer.
Twitter Founder Biz Stone says 'All Social Media is Political.' One of the best marketers I know who runs major U.S. Technology conferences from her ...
In reporting about a Taliban attack against Camp Bastion in southern Afghanistan last Friday, The New York Times pointed out that the eight U.S. Marin...
When the United States finally tired of the corruption and waste of Vietnam, we pulled out our props, only to witness the unviability of our client state without massive U.S. aid. What happens when we finally tire of Afghanistan?