I remember when no one was minding Afghanistan, including the media. About a month ago, I could barely find a story on Afghanistan, except in a publication such as Foreign Policy.
Now, Afghanistan has become a political football. Republicans don't miss a beat when it comes to exploitation.
Something's definitely awry with Stanley McChrystal, who seems like a decent guy but somehow thinks he landed the job as Commander in Chief.
Morally speaking, I think we've done too much damage in Afghanistan to leave the people behind. That would be my only argument for staying. But there are the moral implications of war itself and more troops in Afghanistan is going to equal more death.
Read McChrystal's assessment on Afghanistan here (the so-called leaked document). It's actually different than what you might expect. He's all about helping the people. He also writes things like "resources won't win this war but under-resourcing will lose it." What's that supposed to mean? That the war is never winnable? What is a "winnable" war anyway?
Meanwhile, the naysayers and critics will keep yapping until Obama announces the new strategy for the region.
Here's Rep. Bill Shuster, a republican, who's promoting McChrystal in an interview with BBC.
McChrystal promoted his plan in London:
