Of course the extreme adverse side of critics also does exist – Pakistani writers who continuously blame their own country (often including themselves as it’s citizens) for it’s current situation. Ahmed Rashid often does so, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Nadeem Paracha as well. I respect their assessments and find them constructive, in case of the latter they sometimes do tend to go into the all-destructive though.

Manan Ahmed on chapatimystery showed that coming up with conspiracy theories or offended negations is not necessary to counter the US push into Pakistan. He offers a straight confutation of a NYTimes OpEd by “one of the brains behind President Obama’s Afghanistan policy”, Seth Jones.

He also links to a hottly debated post at Registan which not only bashes Jones but also Michael Semple on the article I recently referred to. It sounds a bit harsh, I would have seen Semple in less critical light but Foust may be more informed (although some commenters disagree). His bashing of Kilcullen I would agree with though.

He is talking about alternatives to the current war that were never considered, a Bonn agreement that was leading into the wrong direction looking for the wrong approach to a solution, and why the West needs to rethink its idea of “security” and how to keep it.

Personally his comment on the last point – that the problem the West has with the Muslim world is a “breach of trust” and thus a solution with arms is in no way leading to a solution, just leading to more distrust – is the most valuable. That “trust” is a vital component if you want to e.g. make business with a carpet dealer in Pakistan, if you want to travel from Urumqi to Kashgar with a truck driver or if you want to build a school in Kashmir with a mistri you hardly know. That trust is different from what we understand under the same term when dealing with other people in e.g. Europe. And that difference needs to be understood and felt (unfortunately I am a poor creator with words and thus won’t attempt an explanation here, Nicolas Bouvier in his L’Usage de Monde does give some insight for all those who can’t experience it themselves), can be learnt on the small scale (carpet dealer, truck driver, mistri) and may then be applied on the large scale (international cooperation, trade, nation building).

He does endorse McChrystal’s assessment, but criticizes him for not presenting a strategy to meet the goal (”people centered approach”).

Kilcullen also has a lecture on “Small Wars”, I haven’t listened to it yet.

The first chapter is the typical “Embedded Journalism/Our Boyz in the Danger Zone” stuff, where you wonder sometimes what a respected Village Elder feels when a Texas snotnose is gesticulating at him, blurping something of “missing cooperation” and shouting “take that, motherfucker” when firing a gun (”So that’s their Allah-uh-Akbar perhaps?”).

Further along Martin Smith does not reveal new insights but he, as Walt puts it, “easily [manages to] slant the story by omitting any footage that doesn’t fit the impression [he is] trying to leave and by shaping the story in ways that reinforce a particular conclusion”. I was always a supporter of a continued presence of American and ISAF forces on Afghan soil (although I still haven’t provided my “In or Out” proposal in written form), but while watching I was continuously feeling “Ok, Ok, leave it and go. It’s no use.”

Backing what Florian has earlier brought up on Stanley McChrystal (”we should have better not gone there [Helmand] at all”(!)), he and his advisers do give extended comments and are criticized likewise by the minimalists although those are underrepresented (Andrew Bacevich).

On the other side the Holbrooke team has their say (himself, Vali Nasr). He really comes through as the dandyish (his sunglasses?), self-confident character George Packer has described him as.

Steve Coll gives probably the fairest assessment (”In the end the Taliban will be defeated strategically when the government of Pakistan makes a strategic decision that its future does not lie in partnership with Islamic extremists”), especially of the guys who completely suck in their interviews (Rehman Malik, Athar Abbas). Unfortunately Pakistan does not seem to have its best guys in the spots that are most likely to be questioned by Western Journalists.

On the other side, Amrullah Seh, head of Afghani intelligence sports a great appearance although he doesn’t even really open his mouth.

As always its well made by PBS although the content is nothing new. Some images although do tell stories that are only poorly portrayed in textual accounts and the back up material PBS provides is extensive.