-A couple of confusing signals from France regarding their involvement in Afghanistan. "Sarkozy Wins Approbal for French Role in Afghanistan" highlights the limited nature of the agreement and the opinions of the domestic French opposition. "France to Boost Troops, Weaponry in Afghanistan" seems to focus on the increase in troop number (80 special troops) and gear (couple of choppers and drones.
My guess? This shows that France isn't far off from American views in domestic policy. We have a military establishment, along with a smallish group of civilians, who recognize the necessity of involvement in Afghanistan. We also a have an ignorant majority who judges success or failure by the number of negative above-the-fold blurbs are on the morning newspaper and chooses to view facts through their partisan eyes. Not good at all. (p.s. Quite the straw man I've constructed, hmm?)
- Here's a story from the Telegraph full of bluster and shallow on reporting, even if it is an article trying to portray the Afghani/Paki-stan conflict in a positive light. From all I can tell, they basically interview a (possibly) blowhard tribal chieftain from Pakistan, transcribe his bravado, and then fill the piece with a grab-bag of facts and asides.
- The ANA, United States, and Pakistani military are in talks about joint forces in the border region. I'm sure I'm not the only one to say this, but: if any agreement doesn't allow U.S. forces to intercede in FATA and western Pakistan, it's not worth the time or paper it's printed on.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment