This morning, in light of news that General McChrystal will formally ask Secretary Gates for 10,000 to 45,000 more troops in Afghanistan, the New York Times initiated a discussion on the following:
We asked some experts on Afghanistan strategy how should additional troops be deployed?
Mind you, they did not bother to ask if more troops were actually a good idea. Fortunately, the comment section put them in their place. People are sick of this war, and they are sick of people working in ivory towered think-tanks calling the shots.
Let's break down to one sentence what each of the five pundits proposed.
1. "Weed out corruption" by training more anti-narcotics police, to wipe out the only export, poppy, that Afghanistan currently has going for it.
2. Demonstrate patience, and "show that we are not just passing through Afghanistan" after eight years.
3. Withdrawing troops due to Karzai's corruption would just illegitimize the Karzai administration, so send more troops to show it is still legitimate.
4. Stop destroying poppy fields, because that's the only thing they can grow- and send troops to Kandahar, because the Canadians there are leaving.
5. Stop putting our troops in danger by sending too few of them to fight the war. Listen to generals when they want more troops- they know what they're doing.
The New York Times has blood on its hands for allowing the Iraq War to steamroll through without giving a voice to the dissenters. This morning they paid some professional warmongers for their thoughts. Maybe they should stick to knitting.