Kelley B. Vlahos


Featured columnist Kelley B. Vlahos discusses her acceptance of the Andrew Exum challenge: making a case for a non-COIN strategy in Afghanistan, why talk of withdrawal is verboten in the US media and “serious minded” think tanks, the uncertainty of Taliban dominance in a US-free Afghanistan and why Hamid Karzai’s government is doomed no matter what happens.

MP3 here. (22:43)

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer, is a longtime political reporter for, a contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine and featured columnist. She is also a Washington correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine.

8 thoughts on “Kelley B. Vlahos”

  1. Kudos for taking on the Exum challenge.

    I'm been butting heads with Andrew Exum since last fall, for his defense of General McChrystal's actions in the whitewash of Pat Tillman's Death [see "Where Men Win Glory" at…. ]

    His father, Roy Exum, isn't much better. He just wrote a column "Roy Exum: I Refuse to Watch It" [… ]about the forthcoming documentary "The Tillman Story" He says, "Do not go watch “The Tillman Story.” I will never watch it, but, for the life of me, I can tell you it is false."

    Wow. talk about willful ignorance. At least his son has the excuse of not understanding truths which might threaten his job security at CNAS.

  2. Scott, quick question. What exactly is victory supposed to be? What would it look like? These CNAS scumbags don't have a clue. It's obvious because the supposed end goal has changed so many times. I don't know if they allow themselves to make the conclusion but they just don't want the war to end yet because they'll look like fools. If they were honest they'd say, "Let them keep dropping bombs and shooting people because it provides me with a good job, a nice living and I get to shove my nose up generals and politicians' asses on a daily basis." They're just a bunch of pathetic sycophants.

  3. One more thing. These people are really as thick as shit, and you don't need the expertise of a Andrew Bacevich to figure that one out. I think even the CNAS people would agree that things aren't going as well as desired and there's been this ever so slight airing of displeasure in the political world about our involvement in Afghanistan since the removal of McChrystal. The idea of pulling out has even been broached. So these guys decide that the best idea is to make the occupation/war more palatable politically by proposing the "smaller footprint". They then go about attempting to make the smaller footprint sound viable as a mililtary strategy. To spell it out: the big footprint isn't working, some "Important" people are starting to get cold feet about the war, the small footprint is then proposed to placate the doubters, which means that if it's actually implemented the US/NATO forces will be very likely to lose even more ground because this strategy wasn't propsed as a military solution but rather a domestic political one. Victory=staying in Afghanistan. Defeat=leaving.

  4. Victory: The Trans-Afghan Pipeline finished bringing oil and gas from five central asian countries to Karachi. You know, the Taliban were guests of honor with the oil people in Texas. But they couldn´t agree on the pipeline and to make things worse the Taliban gave an oil contract to an Argentinian firm ! The rest is propaganda, AP and Reuters. They do it far better than Dr Goebbels.

  5. It seems time for me to type that the difference between the Rs and the Ds on foreign policy is that the Ds think you should bomb them for humanitarian reasons too.

    Unfortunately, even that distinction is fading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.