Sunday, September 12, 2010

Afghan Studyless Group

Quiz Time!

What all happens when a collective of brainiac academs, super smart attorneys, intrepid journalists, ex gov guys wishful thinkers and the guy from Weenie Hut Juniors hook up?

Not much!

Least in the practical sense for certain views Great Satan could actually use.

Kinda like the Afghanistan Study Group.

First off - no military cats were involved, a serious error!

"...Put briefly, the ASG Report:

Eschews expertise on Afghanistan or the military;

Distorts the nature of the threat;

Does not account for the realistic consequences of its recommendations;

Does not support questionable assertions and assumptions;

Misrepresents vital American interests in the region;

Implicitly blames Pashtuns for militancy, instead of the social and historical pressures driving the insurgency;

Is cut and pasted multiple times, leading to lots of repeated assertions with little argument to support them; and

Is inconsistent and contradictory in consecutive paragraphs and sections."

Easy to diss and dismiss - ASG could have been way more better by admitting without modesty or restraint that the choices are somewhere betwixt suck and suckiest.

Check the amazing follow up and attempted defense with some of the very creators of Afghan Unassing Consortium's report here

Pic "Great Satan would have to deal with a strategic disaster the likes of which we have not seen since the fall of South Vietnam."


Grouchy Historian said...

Clearly the genesis of the Iraq Study Group, another colossal failure, can be seen. I think until the U.S. is ready to put real pressure on Pakistan, particularly the ISI, maybe by hinting at a closer alliance with the Indians...then the swamp is never gonna get drained.

Jpck20 said...

I'm not surprised they didn't include any military cats. It's a well known fact that from Obama on down, the Libs are afraid and intimitaded by the more manly men in uniform. Just the facts.

Render said...

Saudi money (Walt) and Iranian-HizbAllah money (Lang) on the same masthead.

The very first sentence of that document is historically wrong. One need not go any further.