[sanjuro]

That's what the Wall Street Journal heard:

Taliban Now Winning

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.

Or maybe not:

MCCHRYSTAL: TALIBAN AREN'T WINNING
From NBC's Richard Engel and Madeleine Haeringer

A spokesman for the commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, tells NBC News that the Wall Street Journal's headline and lead "go too far."

Today, under the headline "Taliban Now Winning," the Journal writes: "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."

But McChrystal's spokesman categorically DENIES that the general said the Taliban is winning.

"The general did NOT say the Taliban is gaining the upper hand," he said.

The spokesman said the general did say there is an aggressive enemy -- and that they are launching complex attacks. But he does not agree that the "Taliban are winning."

 

[Silver]

We've spent more than $200 Billion dollars in Afghanistan since 2001.

Afghanistan's PPP GDP was about $23 Billion dollars (est) in 2008.

The Taliban isn't winning. They've won.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Geez. If only Bush had finished that war before he decided to make another one up. We might have even gotten Osama.

 

[JohnE]

They are winning only in the sense that the North won the Vietnamese conflict. The press has turned on the American war effort, and Allied war planners and fighters are not allowed to wage an unfettered, all out war in which the objective is total annnihilaton of your enemy.
Just how many battles have the Taliban "won"? Outside of the media?

 

[Silver]

They are winning only in the sense that the North won the Vietnamese conflict. The press has turned on the American war effort, and Allied war planners and fighters are not allowed to wage an unfettered, all out war in which the objective is total annnihilaton of your enemy.
Just how many battles have the Taliban "won"? Outside of the media?

Anything short of a genocide isn't going to net a win. Even the Soviets couldn't make that happen. That seems to be what you calling for, however.

It's time to leave.

Blaming it on the press was wrong and shortsighted in Vietnam, and it's wrong again.

 

[JohnE]

No, not genocide. But the thing is, when you wage war, there is no halfway. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Something the architects of this mess did not understand. (I feel it was not worth doing, btw.). Which is why the French were right to stay out...

It is time to leave, agreed. But how to leave without leaving a huge power vacuum? (Ditto on both counts for Iraq...)

The Taliban was militarily defeated. They cant touch us on the battlefield. Which is why they are waging a guerrillla war. And If we could/would let the SF folks run this shindig (Which is what they specialize in...) it would be "over" soon.

On the public relations front, they have fought to a tie at this point. Mainly because of the general publics willingness to believe that the US is evil (Not the a$$holes who run around the countryside, beheading and oppressing people and leaving roadside bombs laying about) and our continued proclivity towards shooting ourselves in the foot (Soldiers posting stupid **** on the interwebs etc...).

 

[valve bouncer]

Everyone knows you can't win a land war in Central Asia.

 

[dante]

Everyone knows you can't win a land war in Central Asia.

That's like going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line...

 

[Silver]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/world/asia/10afghan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Great, now we're targeting drug traffickers. And God knows, if the military says it is legal, it's legal right?

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds...

 

[kidwoo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/world/asia/10afghan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Great, now we're targeting drug traffickers. And God knows, if the military says it is legal, it's legal right?

WTF you talking about?

After the glorious success of our own domestic war on drug trafficking, this is just the logical next step with our newly found skillz.

So every farmer that grows sustenance with a few poppies on the side is now an enemy of freedom. Bout damn time they learn. Jesus is a scotch man.

 

[MMike]

WTF you talking about?

After the glorious success of our own domestic war on drug trafficking, this is just the logical next step with our newly found skillz.

So every farmer that grows sustenance with a few poppies on the side is now an enemy of freedom. Bout damn time they learn. Jesus is a scotch man.

Free Missy!

 

[JohnE]

I always pictured Jesus as a teqiula man...oh wait a minute...THAT Jesus? He is a beer guy.

 

[DaveW]

I always pictured Jesus as a teqiula man...oh wait a minute...THAT Jesus? He is a beer guy.

No way, that mad f*cker HAD to be on Absinthe!