industrial-strength insurgency.

now there's an odd adjective for an insurgency. irony free, i'm sure, considering the source.

Gringo:

Progress in reconciliation is most likely when you are in a position of strength

aka 'bash your way to the top, and then tell everyone else to negotiate'.

Gringo:

1.  Sometimes the more force is used, the less effective it is.

2. Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction.

if only they really believed that...

perhaps the average afghan peasant knows more about the geopolitical reasons why america's there than the media-mystified american public, us bloggers, or even the pars-that-be.

thanks for the link, surfing on from that i found this, which is another well expressed point of view to take on board...

The one thing you need to read about Afghanistan By Christian Brose | Shadow Government

One of the great fallacies of development is that all we have to do is to show 'them' how to do it and they can take it on for themselves. This is not the case and will never happen. Our ability to provide this kind of assistance is rooted in a cultural bias which recognizes abstract notions like 'society', civic responsibility, public/private partnerships, and a whole host of mental infrastructure which has taken centuries to develop. In Afghanistan the conditions for self-development are unavailable as they have been corrupted by outside interference for most of their modern history. If we are going to stay and fix Afghanistan then we will have to do just that...stay and fix it ourselves....If we want them to do it the let's provide a generation of peace and a whole new system of education. Afghan ministers are like mafia dons who dispense favors to their friends and wallop their foes....development is not in their vocabulary.