Steve, as I'm sure you well know, women putting men to shame (present company excepted) is not an unusual phenomenon, even outside of China.

I previously blasted "A New Way Forward" in Afghanistan for proclaiming that the US shouldn't abandon Afghanistan, when the US has in effect abandoned US citizens. Now seeing that Matthew Hoh is associated with it, and after reading his bio which I was impressed with, I will eagerly await the argument on why the US should not abandon Afghanistan.

The New Way Forward seems to be a modified Biden Plan for Afghanistan, but it retains nation-building which in Afghanistan is futile. Let's see.

We should never forget (as foreign affairs junkies) that no effort in a foreign country should ever take precedence over the best interests of Americans.

".....women putting men to shame...."

Such a concept must be terribly confusing for Ms./Mr. Wiggie Whatever. I hope he/she/it finds him/her/it/self soon, so the proper half can be appropriately shamed.

Oh shit, now even I'm confused.

Steve,

There is a typo in this paragraph, just before the five-point list of recommendations:

"The more promising path for the U.S. in the Af/Pak region would reverse the recent escalation and move away from a counterinsurgency effort that is neither necessary nor likely to succeed. Instead, the U.S. should:
We believe this strategy will best serve the interests of women in Afghanistan as well. The worst thing for women is for Afghanistan to remain paralyzed in a civil war in which there evolves no organically rooted support for their social advancement."

Otherwise, good summary.

Mao said "You are not a real man; if you haven't
climbed the Great Wall." - I agree

Afghanistan: "The Study Group believes that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan should aim at realistic and attainable objectives."

Let's look at them.

1) Emphasize Power-Sharing and Political Reconciliation. Afghanistan will not achieve a sustainable peace without broader support from the Afghan people themselves.

The problem is that Karzai is corrupt and that, after nine years, there is no chance that he will either be replaced or gain popular support.

2) Scale Back and Eventually Suspend Combat Operations in the South and Reduce the U.S. Military Footprint. Simultaneous to these efforts at achieving a new, more stable political equilibrium in the country, the U.S. should downsize and eventually discontinue combat operations in southern Afghanistan.

This would require a major change in US policy which has been in effect during two administrations, which has been that any US military presence is conditioned-based, and the generals appraise the conditions. After nine years, the Taliban exercises control over wide parts of the country while the death toll of American soldiers in Afghanistan has reached its highest point since the war began almost nine years ago. Retreat under fire? Only surrender monkeys do that.

3) Keep the Focus on Al Qaeda and Domestic Security. The U.S. should redirect some part of the savings from this troop reduction toward improved counter-terrorism efforts and protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks

There are few al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the primary fight is against Taliban.

4) Promote Economic Development. Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest countries, and endemic poverty has made some elements of the population susceptible to Taliban overtures.

Nation-building, State Dept.: Building a vibrant society. As Hagel has rightly said, this is not something the US ought to be doing. I would add: during a severe recession when the US is losing its vibrant society.

5) Engage Global and Regional Stakeholders. The Afghanistan conflict reflects long-standing rivalries among the different ethnic and tribal groups within the country, but it has long been exacerbated by outside powers seeking to protect or advance their own interests.

Obama promised to do this in March 2009, but has never done it. He has engaged Pakistan as a partner, but there are problems with that. Pakistan is widely believed, and it was in General McChrystal's assessment a year ago, to be assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill US troops! How smart is that? A diplomatic effort spearheaded by the United Nations? The UN Secretary General is an ineffective US puppet. Facilitate a more energetic diplomatic effort? The US suffers a dearth of effective diplomats, best illustrated by the unqualified Secretary of State.

Hard to care 'what Mao said.' Like quoting Stalin.

Mao's government is still with us and doing quite well. Stalin's isn't.

The biggest problem is the fact that Nadine and the teabaggers
keep financing Maoism, subconsciously.

Quoting Mao?!? What next? A discussion of America's strategic interests in Afghanistan? And an elaboration of what's at stake there?

Surely not! Such a discussion would be tantamount to heresy.

Much safer to quote Mao!

Mao was direct and easy to understand:
"I voted for you during your last election."

Kathy Kadane:
Does that go for George Bush, too? Anyway, I think you missed Steve's point. He wasn't commenting on whether Mao, Stalin or anyone else was a butcher.