Afghanistan: for what?

Once again today the story is the same: Canadian troops killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

Except it's not the same, this time they were in the Nyala, a vehicle that was supposed to be best-in-class for protecting against IEDs and the like. They had Scott Taylor of Esprit de Corps on the radio this afternoon and he opined that Afghanistan is not a place were we can "win" in any conventional military sense. He then went on to say that this recent attack had occured in any area that had been pacified last fall and was thought to be friendly to NATO forces.

While the supposed aims for any NATO mission sound noble I just cannot believe that we can accomplish them in any meaningful fashion. So what good are we doing if the Taliban (or whoever else dislikes us) can operate with impunity outside the perimeter of NATO's bases?

Profiles In Tastefulness: Blogging Tories Edition

It's all over the news, but in case you missed it, there was a bomb attack on bus full of elite Iranian soldiers. Such tactics are often decried as illegal or immoral, particularly by conservatives. However, when such tactics are used on the Iranians, at least one Blogging Tory finds it hilarious! Get a load of this zinger:

"Things haven't been so Sunni lately."

It's funny because it plays on the word "sunny" and the name of one sect of Islam. Did you see how that works? Oh what laughter!

Wait a sec, Sunni extremists in south-eastern Iran? Doesn't that border on Afghanistan? Hey isn't that where Canadian soldiers are locking horns with those Sunni extremists known as the Taliban? I wonder how the Blogging Tories would feel if it came out that the bomb used in Iran was of a similar design to those used in Kandahar. Kind of ruins the joke, eh?