The GAO figures that for the $10 billion we've spent on the effort, "only 2 of 105 army units are assessed as being fully capable of conducting their primary mission and efforts to develop the army continue to face challenges." No police units are up to snuff. Without security, there can be no political stability in Afghanistan, and without political stability, it's back to 1989, when the Taliban were in charge. Full Story »
Posted by Jeff Clark
The editorial gets the current situation fairly well, but misses a few points. The Afghani people threw out the British colonialists, and they threw out the Russian colonialists. If they are now successfully throwing out the American colonialists, are we on the wrong side of history? The piece presumes the Afghanistan occupation is a good war, but that is questionable. The Taliban offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to a third country court for trial, and Bush refused that in order to preserve his posture for invading and bombing the rubble in Afghanistan. This war seems to be generating far more terrorists and opium than before the invasion.
