Surprisingly level-headed and deep for the Weekly Standard. But given the violence and instability in the region and the Standard's support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the outset, I still have trouble accepting some of the conclusions in here.

Informative article about Afghanistan by two knowledgeable scholars, with ties to the Council of Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute. They present a thoughtful and nuanced analysis of the current situation on the ground, and our prospects for bringing peace to that region.

A very well written, sourced, and biased report on reasons th U.S. can defeat the Taliban.The authors say that the Iraqi insurgents where far superior to the Taliban. The Taliban are a battle tested enemy that takes it time to do anything. They will wait, wait, and wait some more , until the timing is right for them to fight. While they win few battles, in their minds, they can outlast anyone.

Read with a very critical eye. The authors are among the biggest and most steadfast supporters of the war in Iraq and the Kagans in particular are leading neocon lights. They backed Bush Administration policies in Iraq pretty relentlessly, and have demonstrated a strong bias toward interventionism and projection of American power. Some of the same memes they used to cover Iraq - e.g. "particular attacks are actually good news!" pop up in this article as well, and it relies heavily on the embedded journalist's view that has been so troubling in our other war.