More scalps...

Another decent piece by Ralph Peters. I don't usually agree with him, but often times he makes some good (but often over the top) points. Here is an excerpt:

Yet, in Afghanistan, we've put the bulk of our efforts into turning a vast flophouse into the Four Seasons -- instead of focusing ruthlessly on our terrorist enemies. It's politically correct madness.

What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration...

Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't.

The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps...

In Afghanistan, we're asking Hutus to fight for Tutsis and Hatfields to guard McCoys...

The Soviets and their Afghan cronies lost because their enemies were willing to sacrifice more -- to give their lives for their heritage, however backward and cruel.

Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us.

How we all miss the Shah

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

This is not from the greatest, most reputable news source (except with regards to New York sports), but here is an interesting point of view from Empress Farah Pahlavi, the widow of the Shah of Iran, published in today's New York Post:

If Carter hadn't let the Shah be overthrown in 1979, "there wouldn't be this problem in Afghanistan, nor would there have been the Iran-Iraq war," Pahlavi tells Avenue magazine. "Iraq would never have dared to even send a plane over our country. The Gulf War wouldn't have happened, nor would any of the problems of the past 30 years, including the exporting of religious fanaticism..."
"The fact that the empress would invite Andy Warhol, fresh from Studio 54, to the Imperial Palace . . . showed just how open-minded, not to say hip, Her Imperial Highness was."

Borrow a flak vest, Mr. Secretary...

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (pbuh) will give a speech to the Air Force Association on Wednesday going into the "lion's den" as Paul Bedard states in the article linked above.

Kurdish, once banned, to be taught in Turkey

This is a huge step towards normalizing relations between the Turks and Kurds. If they come to a peace, it is good for us as well since we could then totally back the Kurds in Iraq without angering our NATO ally Turkey...

Speaking Kurdish was banned in Turkey until 1991.

Prodded by the European Union, which has been pressing Turkey to strengthen Kurdish rights, the country has allowed private language schools to teach Kurdish, and some Kurdish-language radio and TV to operate. In January, the government launched a 24-hour state-run Kurdish television station.

In a gesture to the minority Kurds, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also uttered a few words in Kurdish on the day the station was launched.

Russian Laws on Use of Force Expanded

Murtha's Not Alone, Watchdog Group Says

Of course, he is not alone! Earmarks have skyrocketed in the past 20 years! One only needs to drive across the United States today to see how well their Congressman is at earmarking - road projects are everywhere, and happening at the same time, from Ohio to Maine, due to the ARRA. It is not just in the DoD budget that it is bad...

Using a computer analysis of public records, the Center for Public Integrity found that, including Murtha, 12 of the committee's 16 members have followed Murtha's earmarking pattern, providing targeted military funds to specific contractors represented by former staffers and friends. Numerous investigative stories have focused on Murtha and fellow Reps. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.) and James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), but other committee members' earmark requests have not faced similar scrutiny.

The Limits Of Force: Iraq and Afghanistan Aren't Ours to Win or Lose

This is an excerpt from an op-ed "retired" Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) wrote for The Washington Post last week. It is spectacular:

The U.S. response, engaging in two wars, was a 20th-century reaction to 21st-century realities. These wars have cost more than 5,100 American lives; more than 35,000 have been wounded; a trillion dollars has been spent, with billions more departing our Treasury each month. We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.

No country today has the power to impose its will and values on other nations. As the new world order takes shape, America must lead by building coalitions of common interests, as we did after World War II...

Are our policies worthy of these Americans' great sacrifices? That question must always be at the fore of our leaders' decisions. Threats to America come from more than Afghanistan. Consider Yemen and Somalia. Are we prepared to put U.S. ground troops there? I doubt we would seriously consider putting forces in Pakistan, yet its vast Federally Administered Tribal Areas and mountainous western border harbor our most dangerous enemies today. We must shift our thinking, now, to pursue wiser courses of action and sharper, more relevant policies.

The president and his national security team should listen to recordings of conversations that President Lyndon B. Johnson had with Sen. Richard Russell about Vietnam, especially those in which LBJ told Russell that we could not win in Vietnam but that he did not want to pull out and be the first American president to lose a war. Difficult decisions with historic consequences are coming soon for President Obama.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy