We (always) need more time for war

[n2doc]

[mix]

1. And will our president persist in this folly? nt

[Bragi]

2. Isn't it always thus?

I once heard a credible speaker suggest that no democratic people anywhere have ever voted directly to go to war, no matter how the proposition was "framed, or "positioned". Most wars would be discontinued, if they were put to a majority vote, he said.

True? Dunno, but I do see that it is always elites that promote and support continued war. Public opinion isn't always right, but nor is it wrong all the time.

[gratuitous]

3. Yes, the next six months will be pivotal and critical

And at that time, there will be a thorough reckoning and accounting, and we'll probably need to revisit the new situation on the ground in about, oh, six months. Further than that, we cannot say, but setting up a perpetual six month reminder on your Outlook calendar might not be a bad idea. Oh, and we'll need to budget some money and troops, too.

American 18-year-olds going off to Afghanistan this year were 10 when this little foreign adventure started. Afghani kids age 12 and under have no living memory of a time when their country wasn't occupied by the American multi-national force.

[n2doc]

4. 6 months = Friedman unit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_(unit)">Friedman Unit definition

[gratuitous]

5. Usually abbreviated as an FU

Which seems highly appropriate for some reason.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Particularly for lost wars. More time, more money, more troops...for PR.