Rory Stewart begs the British government to come to its senses:
Did our mission go wrong because Nato had too few troops; or because it sent too many? Could a different strategy have fixed the situation; or was it always impossible? The reason no longer matters. Whatever the explanation, things will not improve: Nato will not “solve the relationship with Pakistan”; it will never create “an effective, credible, legitimate Afghan government”; and in most parts of the country it has already lost “the hearts and minds” of the Afghan people.
Massie agrees:
Question for ministers and generals alike: what part of Stewart's analysis is wrong or even merely unpersuasive?
No serviceman should die in a "war" that is unwinnable in a country that is unchangeable. In retrospect, Obama's decision to ramp up the war to wipe out al Qaeda and find and kill bin Laden was the right one. It allows us to say that we succeeded in the core mission – to get the perpetrators of 9/11 and destroy as much of their organization as we could. But nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government whose officials are now squirrelling their resources into foreign bank accounts?
What that soldier did was unconscionable evil. But the grueling whack-a-mole war he had served four tours on is unconscionably pointless:
He suffered traumatic brain injury in 2010 after a vehicle rollover accident in Iraq, though he later was deemed "fit for duty," a senior U.S. official said. Sources also said the suspect had "family problems," possibly related to trouble in his marriage, before deploying for the fourth time.
Sometimes the real insanity is, well, in front of one's nose.
The Dish 