| Prax, no kidding the US isn't party to Kyoto. That's the whole point. And a Canadian government busily implementing Kyoto (Chrétien) is far less congenial to Washington than a Canadian government actively subverting its own treaty commitment (Harper). Harper's a tool.
Re Vietnam, it's never quite the same, is it? So -- hey, no problem -- it's always possible to overlook the similarities until those similarities get their big hairy paws all over you and demand your attention. We'll see, eh?
So, what you described as NATO strategy in Afghanistan sounds to me just like Vietnam pre-Tet. As for what the "Afghans" want (which tribe? which clan within which tribe?), I don't see how anybody can pretend to know. Certainly no news organization.
Why should NATO's intervention end in a way any different from the British or the Russians in the past?
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne |