Gringo Lost

Words about things and stuff

Posting posts from better blogs makes this blog better

with 2 comments

Here’s a quick review of two blog posts and one article which I think are accurate and insightful reflections on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and America’s reliance on counter-insurgency to achieve strategic objectives.

From Fabius Maximus: If we won in Iraq, what did  we win?  Was it worth the costs?

In this post, Fabius Maximus disagrees with Michael Yon, amongst other things on America’s role in winning the war, the amount of underlying conflicts that contributed to destabilization and still continue to simmer after US troop withdraw from the cities, and the cost-effectiveness of waging wars like the one in Iraq.

Nothing really to add here, except that regarding “simmering” conflicts, the Council on Foreign Relations has a segment on the Kurds and the Iraqi Government.  In this discussion, it is argued that the US needs to remain in Iraq to balance against conflict between the semi-autonomous Kurdistan and Iraq’s central government.

From The Strategist: Change of strategy needed in Afghanistan

This is a short post, the basic gist: Any victories that come from invading Iraq and Afghanistan and beating the insurgencies, are pyrrhic victories.  And if we are going to continue fighting in Afghanistan we need a more modest strategy that reduces our footprint but still allows us to do precision strikes against key enemy leadership from staging bases.

The Guardian: The alliance of denial must end

Just a quoteout…

Diplomacy, your hour has come. There is no way soldiers will find an exit from Afghanistan. They can deliver defeat or they can deliver bloody stalemate. They cannot deliver victory and every observer knows it. This conflict will end only when the courage being daily demanded of soldiers is also shown by politicians.


Written by gringolost

July 17, 2009 at 2:14 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Thanks for the mention, and the link too. I look forward to reading more of your posts.


    July 19, 2009 at 3:59 am

    • It's our anthropocentric vanity that lulls us into seeing environmental selection for intelligence as naladut…respite common sense and the record clearly demonstrating otherwise.Didn't environmental selection significantly increase brain size and intelligence in humans before civilization?Also, in addition to evidence of civilization increasing intelligence in some instances, isn't there evidence of civilization reducing cranial capacity and possibly intelligence as well?And cetaceans have large brains and high intelligence which have been selected in a natural environment.


      May 23, 2017 at 8:18 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: