The answer you've been waiting for!

If you can make sense of the above chart, then run don't walk to contact General McChrystal. The answers to all our Afghan war woes are somewhere contained in the above diagram. Kudos to you if you have the answer. All I have been able to come up with is very similar to the following:


"I saw this a couple days back and had no trouble at all figuring it out. Simply stated in layman terms it says the Afghan war can be solved easily with the use of 4 nuclear weapons. In a broader scope it says all of the middle east problems can be solved with the use of no less than 23 but no more than 28 nuclear weapons.
Glad I could clear that up for you."

That was the statement in response to the article that I sent my good friend, Joel. He has a way with words, no? And a certain compassionate delicacy that would make even Stalin blush. I respect that.

But seriously, does anyone have a better solution than this? Of course, better being used loosely and to mean that we actually win this war? It is incomprehensibly absurd to believe that we can win a war that has waged since 642, that no one has been remotely successful in quelling (including the Russians). Here is a real time counter of the cost of both the Afghan and Iraq wars. Can we justify the hands tied, $$$$$ blowing, B.S. power point strategies we are using? Even Joint Forces Commander, James N. Mattis exclaims " PowerPoint makes us stupid." PowerPoint???!!! PowerPoint... really? When I read the above article, I was not completely astounded to learn that generals spend much of their time watching presentations to summarize, "explain" and strategize for engagement.

If you have ever seen a PowerPoint presentation, then you know it gives a complete ignoramus the ability to appear knowledgeable on a topic of which they have almost no understanding. PowerPoint is the epitome of what you can do to "wing it" in the 21st century. Bullshit has existed since probably before 1 A.D. , but never before folks has it been so pervacious as to wholly invade our military strategy. Technology, in so many cases, provides the false perception of understanding. In actuality, this is presentation of misunderstanding which spends billions of dollars and wastes thousands of American/ Joint Forces lives. My opinion of the Afghan situation is not unlike Joel's. If we want to WIN, we know how to do it. The U.S. has settled the score successfully in every past attempt using the nuclear method. We have maintained nuclear stability with Russia during the cold war without actually using nuclear weapons. The delicate equilibrium or equal threat of bombing each other into the stone age inspired a point for point appeal to build arms which were very unappealing to actually use. See Nash Equilibrium. So realistically, there are two practical uses for nukes. Building them to intimidate is one, but that alone is not enough. Maybe it's time to launch a few. Winning however is not an option by any other method. So , what do you think it will be? Nukes or billions more wasted?

I have a pretty good guess....