I was so totally going to blog that; now it's too late.

Anyway, remember this one, too

Bear in mind that the same Afghanistan story is in the US edition, too. Newsweek just figured they could sell more issues with happy news on the cover.

Once unsuspecting American consumers buy the issue, however, they will be exposed to the full force of Newsweek's reportage.

Apo, you've got it wrong; this doesn't show that the MSM are coddling an America that doesn't want to understand foreign affairs or to hear bad news, it shows that they hate America and are stabbing us in the back. That should be obvious.

I'm not sure what to make of that coverage.

My guess is that Newseek is probably a little left of center (for the USA that is), and slightly biased in favor of stuff that happens in the Northeast and in favor of Israel. So..? Isn't everything printed with some kind of bias? I mean, it's not just the facts printed that matter, but _which_ facts. You can't print all the facts, there isn't enough room. Hence, bias everywhere.

Regarding that eye-catching headline. Yeah, sure. It is designed to sell more magazines. But there is a deeper story which I don't know if they cover.

One the one hand, the USA is in fact "losing" in Afghanistan. Every empire since the Hellenistic Greeks left their carcass there, in the Hindu Kush. These are people who are armed to the teeth and will not be dominated by any foreign power. Period. That is the way it was. That is the way it will always be. A guerilla war--which is what the USA is fighting there against regrouped "Taliban"--is doomed to fail unless "we" resort to genocide.

(Heck, even if I were Santa Claus I'd be damn careful flying over those villages in Afghanistan. They'll shoot at anything that moves. And once the insurgency there gets hold of portable anti-aircraft missiles ala Stingers, and the Americans are finished. )

The irony here should be loud and clear. Once the USA supported people who would later become Taliban to defeat the Russians. Then, in 2001, the USA supported the Soviet-backed Northern Alliance, who are all about forced collectivization and secular workers' paradises and that kind of thing.

But on the other hand, if you define victory by pulverizing Al Qada, this DID in fact happen at Tora Bora, way back in 2002. Yes, Bin Laden and a handfull did get out and probably make it into the wilds of eastern pakistan, but of the 1000 or so arab fighters in the training camps, by most accounts they were blown utterly to pieces by carpet bombing from B52s.

The old Al Qada didn't really regroup, but was redefined by Al Zarquawi in Iraq after his incessant pestering of Bin Laden to let him use the name. While Zarquawi is finally dead, he leaves behind a huge number of well-trained Sunni radicals from all across the middle east, biding their time in Iraq for the next big thing.

Why didn't the USA just "declare victory" at Tora Bora and get the hell out?

Sorry, Jon, but that's um, how to say, silly.

To reduce it to absurdity, you seem to be asserting that, because it's the mystical Hindu Kush, whether we sent in one commando with a big knife, or 200,000 troops, the end result would have been the same?

M/tch, obviously it depends on the knife.

I should think it would depend more on the commando than on the knife.

What happened to Rambo?

Yeah, Rambo! He won Vietnam for us, singlehandedly. I'm sure he could triumph in Afghanistan! Eye of the tiger, baby!

Of course, in addition to a knife, he'd need some explosive-tipped arrows, and some mud, and stuff like that.

yo mitch,

perhaps quickly written and not completely thought out in the most erudite fashion, but...

NOT ABSURD. listen here...

when an empire battles an insurgency, it doesn't matter how strong the empire is or how many tactical battles it wins. because victory for an insurgency means something differnt. all it means is staying alive to fight another day.

in the end it isn't body counts or square mileage of territory held, it's who can hold onto a rifle for longer.

and that, my friends, would not be the americans.

if the USA were ruthless enough ala the British or Romans or Nazis, genocide would be an option. but i think, strategically, a nasty genocide is very bad PR for a superpower these days, and would isolate us internationally. not to mention stain our consciences for generations to come with an ugly legacy.

the time to "declare victory" for the USA should have been at Tora Bora. Any longer than that, and we're fighting people who are pissed off that their families have been tortured and/or killed. pissed off for a person in afghanistan usually lasts about 200 years.

can't touch that.

But our foray into Afghanistan didn't start as an insurgency, it was a conventional style war on the Taliban government and its army.

Arguably, there was a good chance that focussing massive resources on Afghanistan to create security and improve the material lot of Afghanis would have resulted in at most a very weak insurgency with little popular support. We didn't do that.

Instead, Bush and his crew quickly started pulling troops, materiel, translators, intelligence assets, etc. away from Afghanistan to get ready for their Excellent Iraqi Adventure.

No doubt about it; the war with Iraq was a monument of stupidity and hubris, and will end up in the words of GEneral William ODom "the biggest strategic disaster in US history" or something like that.

Rebuilding Afghanistan as you say might have worked, but such an effort would have been without precedent. So I have my doubts that it wouldn't have turned into an insurgency in time, just as it has now.

But who knows?

To be sure, if the object was killing Arab radical guests of Taliban and the assortment of Al Queda gangs, the USA could have done it far more expeditiously had the Iraq war not been the object of monomania.

That is, bin laden and Zawiri would have been gone a long time ago. And with those symbols of 9-11 dead, the "war on terror" could have easily been shifted into a struggle involving the far more effective use of allies, ground intelligence, and old fashioned police work.

Yeah, Rambo! He won Vietnam for us, singlehandedly. I'm sure he could triumph in Afghanistan!

Obviously, you never saw Rambo III. He DID go to Afghanistan, where he helped the forerunners of the Taliban defeat the Soviets. In short, Rambo got us into this mess.

Rambo is Charlie Wilson? It all makes sense!

But here's a question for anyone who might have an answer: does Newsweek generally run the same cover in all countries?

"A guerilla war--which is what the USA is fighting there against regrouped "Taliban"--is doomed to fail unless "we" resort to genocide."

But surely genocide makes sense sometimes, right, since we don't want to be passive and fight all of our enemies on the shores of America? Maybe not in Afghanistan - it's got no resources that we have to worry about being controlled by the wrong hands, right?

But we should realize that unless WE resort to genocide, the Chinese surely will on their way to world domination. That's why genocide in Iran is so important.

The Bush canard about nukes may be useful in selling genocide domestically, but the main point is that we need to control the ME to keep China from doing so. They're already there, mocking our embargo, buying oil, selling arms technology - damn Chinese!

Tom. Unless what yer say in is tongue in cheek, lemme tell ya that I'm not afraid of China. They want to sell us stuff and we want to buy it. Along the way, they get rich. That's their plan.

A prosperous China and a proserous America can coexist just fine.

Hmmm Rambo in Afghanistan. I'm thinking he might, uh, stand out a bit.

Jon, your type will leave us totally defenseless. How long have you been hating America?

ever since howard zinn and noam chomsky, baby

no but seriously, love and hate are far more similarly aligned than indifference or ambivalence, don't you agree?

Those guys should be lined up against a wall, dontcha think?

PS: Ignore the comments by the guy Tatanka.

GB, you don't fail to satisfy with your predictable take on this:

"In short: Newsweek thinks Americans are a bunch of provincial hicks who aren't that interested in world events — even events taking place in a country where American troops are fighting.

Of course, the American-as-slack-jawed-yokel is a vicious and unfounded stereotype. But Newsweek is trying its hardest to perpetuate it."

What, Newsweek doesn't get to decide how to adjust its products to maximize its sales in different markets? Why do you hate capitalism?

I think a better tact would be to lambaste Newsweek not for hypocrisy, but for undermining our foreign policy and giving comfort to Islamofascists with that "Losing Afghanistan" title and the cover photo of the heroic Taliban fighter. Not only that, but things are really not so bad there, as Bush just pointed out, right?

In other words, isn't the stab-in-the back argument much stronger than the perpetuating-unfair-sterotypes argument? Both are part of the they-hate-America tact, but you've inexplicably taken the weaker one.

Yep, the dastardly liberal media strikes again! Apo, you rule!

It wouldn't surprise me if the edit staff at Newsweek thinks that the American people are largey a bunch of ignorant, unthinking, slack-jawed yokels, and have at best a condescending attitude towards their typical reader in the wastelands of "flyover country."

Haven't read Time/Newsweek/US News in a long time, though...those magazines are just mind-numbingly trivial and myopic...Prefer the internet or the Economist or the Atlantic or Reason or the WSJ to get decent and thorough news, fully aware of the inherent biases in each rag.

I don't think that Newsweek or most liberals "hate America" though. They may be pissed off when their team is losing and gloat when their political enemies bite the dust due to incompetance and scandal, but it cannot be said that they hate America.

( Me, I like capitalism. I think it's great.

Still wondering, though, if true free trade in the Adam Smith sense of the word can be practiced with countries that do not embrace capitalism but rather labor arbitrage and aggresive mercantilism. ... but i digress)

"I don't think that Newsweek or most liberals "hate America" though. They may be pissed off when their team is losing and gloat when their political enemies bite the dust due to incompetance and scandal, but it cannot be said that they hate America."

Jon, the fact that the liberal MSM is constantly trying to show the alleged incompetence of the Administration is itself proof that they hate America. That you defend them (and refer to false allegations of incompetence and scandal as if they were real) makes me wonder whether you too hate America.

Gaijin Biker deserves our full support as he tries to show us how evil the MSM truly are. Get with the program!

Round about update on why Newsweek hates America and is trying to keep us stupid at home, while stabbing us in the back abroad:

Billmon commenting on Gawker on a Newsweek International Edition article about how the hawks in the Administration are responsible for the North Korea nuke test.

This topic has risen to the top of the heap again -- November 2, 2006.

And the jury is in -- the Big Three are slanted WAY to the left. They favor Democrats and liberals in 77% of the stories they produce, while only giving a positive nod to 12% of stories dealing with Republicans.
The CMPA study was conducted by an objective group that simply watched the stories put out primarily by NBC, CBS and ABC.

Read more at http://sopebocks.blogspot.com/

Dude, CMPA is not an objective group. They are a right-wing propaganda outlet: "While the CMPA is often described as 'non-partisan,' it certainly seems to be a conservative project. Fundraising letters for the launch of the Center contained endorsements from the likes of Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson. Support for the group comes from the most prominent right-wing foundations, like Olin, Coors and Scaife."

Nice try, though.