Lemuel, the thesis does matter, or at least it may matter, and extends far beyond Afghanistan.  As people migrate to the cities from the farms under inductrialization, we have less children.  Indeed, the European population, which industrialized first is declining. 

Therefore people may be less inclined to permit their children to be sent off to war.  If this is true and a significant force, and I don’t know whether it is or not, that means that war will diminish in the future, and those wars that occur will be less bloody.

It also means that the US will lose the war in Afghanistan, but most knowledgable people knew that to begin with.  It would also mean that the US and Western imperialism would be more reluctant to get into these colonial wars, since killing a lot of people doesn’t win them.  and it has implications for the Palestinian struggle as well against Israel.

History doesn’t forward in a straight line but sidles sideways, like a crab.  The Journal’s bent toward imperialist oppression has stated a truth that might have historical implications.  Or perhaps not.  It should be explored and examined more closely.

Ok, fair enough, I would agree in principle that there is less potential for conflict when populations are in decline - simply because there will be less competition for resources.

But - how is this relevant? Does an American mother feel better about losing a son/daughter if she has other children? I doubt it crosses their minds… grieving families look for reasons why - not demographic comparisons.

They see their precious, beloved children dying because of strategic/tactical incompetence on behalf of their military and policy-makers; this is never acceptable to anyone of any culture or any amount of children.

If the tables were turned, and American only-children were dying defending their homes and families, I doubt there’d be the same trite arguments being peddled…

That article was obfuscation - bullshit designed to obscure the reality of the situation, frankly.

Obama needs to articulate clear objectives for this war - he hasn’t - therefore it is un-winnable, geddit? I’m not saying that it would necessarily be simple to achieve your goals if only they existed, but at least you’d have something to aim for.

Please, focus on the things which matter.

No, no, Lemuel, The Journal story is politically interesting.  The population of a decling growth may be more loath to go to war than one with increasing growth.  This may be the reason that the US is concentrating on low intensity conflicts and is so sensitive public relations-wise about the death of its soldiers, not showing the coffins on TV. 

After all, compared to the massacres of the 20th century, a few thousand deaths over a number of years are insignificant, and deaths of dark skinned Enemy are largely invisible to the American population. 

Europe, a decling population numerically, is now more peaceful than Africa, with a huge birthrate.  How significant this factor is needs to be explored, not dismissed.  It is to the credit of TD that it raises it.

Just when you thought writing on the Afghan-war couldn’t get any sillier…

Sure, Afghans will easily out-breed Amerians, all day long. But how is it relevant in this day of drones and B-52s? When some dude back in the states can rub out a couple of hundred people before brunch, without even getting his finger-nails dirty…

The monthly NATO casualty-rate in Afghanistan is negligible, a fraction of that incurred by traffic-accidents during WWII. While that is cold comfort to those whose loved-ones are dying, do you think military-planners give a fuck? (No, dying is part of a soldier’s job - this isn’t a conscript-army)

The reason the war isn’t being ‘won’ is because there are no concrete objectives - how does one fulfill an objective which doesn’t exist?