... your spew of bile over poor Massoud conveniently overlooks fact that had he not been blown to bits a couple of days before 9/11 we would have made great use of him in our little follow up war - and given the fact that to those not predisposed to revile him or think him a war criminal most seemed to have reckoned him a great military mind and a charismatic leader who inspired loyalty and devotion while championing a more progressive view of Islam, who can tell what difference that may have made.
As for the essay itself, I agree that it's odd if not at times weird and in the end not convincingly argued - but what I take to be its central point rings true, ie you have two options if you wanna win in Afghanistan: go big - destroy or radically alter the prevailing culture [thus her going on about Japan and Germany - this an extreme option to be sure but not in theory completely nuts - after all, when you get right down to it, war is usually about, explicitly or implicitly, modifying the cultural framework of your enemy]; or go small - accept the limitations of the prevailing culture and try and exploit what tactical 'virtues' it has to offer to your immediate advantage and then hope when all is said and done that in the end you can wrangle something positive out of the consequences.
Now, I understand why some [most] are troubled by the way she's framed this conceit - one does sense a certain Nietzschean darkness lurking in her psyche there - but still, as far as I'm concerned, I reckon she, not withstanding all her seeming flaws, strikes closer to the truth than some more 'enlightened' types have managed lately...
