I caught Christiane Amanpour's initial broadcast as George Stephanopoulos's replacement on ABC's This Week. The main difference is that the show is now hosted by a journalist rather than a political hack. "Journalist" and "political hack" are increasingly used synonymously, but Amanpour strikes me as the genuine article whereas as Stephanopoulos came out of the intense partisan environment of the Clinton White House and never transcended it. Can you imagine ABC News hiring Karl Rove to moderate its Sunday public affairs program? Yet, with a straight face, they hired Clinton's spin doctor. The results were predictable: ratings plummetted. Who wants a "news" show run by a former lackey to Dukakis, Gephardt, and Clinton? That's more of a Sunday sermon. What used to be the best Sunday morning show when hosted by David Brinkley and then Sam and Cokie was not only losing to its network competition, but got bested by cable competition of the politics variety. But bad ratings needn't be an obstacle to a liberal's climb up the news business ladder. ABC has promoted Stephanopoulos to co-host of Good Morning America and substitute anchor for its evening news. Clitonistas, don't fret. Amanpour may come from a straight journalism background, but she is married to former Clinton State Department official Jamie Rubin. That's the kind of qualifications that George Stephanopoulos's employers find impressive.
"Asif Ali Zardari, warned today that the US-led Nato coalition was losing the war in Afghanistan and should replace its mistaken approach with a long-term strategy to win over the Afghan people.... In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, Zardari said: "I believe that the international community, which Pakistan belongs to, is in the process of losing the war against the Taliban. And that is, above all, because we have lost the battle for hearts and minds.""
-------
8/2/10 by asdf
"Our military is great at winning the first few months as we are second to none when we blow things up. But after that, when the civilian and military leaders decide we need to become sensitive social workers, we're screwed.
Our foes these days are primitives and don't understand 'kinder and gentler'. They only understand strength and resolve. So until we are willing to demonstrate that we have that in spades, we will handily win battles but never wars."
You just don't get it. Blowing stuff up isn't what wins this type of war. Anyone read the recent article on the price of a missile and the schools that price tag could build over there? If our foes are primitive, and things like schools and plumbing establish communities that appreciate us rather than hate us, it is obvious how blowing stuff up is no longer a viable option. Its common sense.
Every death we cause over there (enemy or civilian) reminds common people of us forcing a way of life on them, breeding more radical antagonism. Raising their Human Development Index score remind them of how bad ass we can be at times. They are ranked 181 of 182 on that scale, and improving that is how we get them to stop hating us. It isn't only our leaders that are saying this, as shown above. The people truly involved in it believe it too. Its not some granola left wing agenda, it is a fact.
I can't stand that mainstream media...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html
Nice post.
You're half right. However, the use of military force AND helping Afghani's better their lives are not mutually exclusive functions.
For instance, training the Afghani military, providing security to their people and hunting down Taliban extremists would be a great example of the "Stick".
Helping Afghanis build schools and infrastructure and providing security (through force) is the other side of the coin. Or, to mix metaphors, the "carrot". However, we could use a lot more carrot.
When afghani children (especially females) feel safe in their ability to go to school, or participate in civil society, their lot in life will improve.
When they have a properly trained and equiped army, they will be able to look after their own security.
That's not "forcing a way of life on them" it's giving them the ability to improve their lives.
However, it would help if Pakistan decided to help out rather than allow insurgents a safe haven as to keep their neighbour destabilized.
