My interpretation of what it all means

It's been light posting as I am "ostensibly" on vacation (as usual a working one). But from what I have observed this is my general feeling.

Even if the first London attacks of a few days ago and the Glascow airport incident were from Muslim extremists (and it certainly appears the former were) it says one thing, dangerous but incompetent.

However, when it comes to winning battles in the middle east, can we really say that we are doing much better...other than in lethality?

As happens far too often an attack that was said to have killed 17 Al Qaeda, turns out to likely have killed 17 civilians.

Yesterday in Afghanistan a raid is said to have killed 62 Taliban, at the cost of an additional 45 civilians. This on the heals of the Afghan government's express criticism of NATO's overuse of force causing the death of civilians.

I'm AEI-subsidized self-proclaimed scholar of the middle east (thy name is Kagan) but I'm pretty sure that the least successful path to winning as many hearts and minds as possible is an insurgency strategy that hooks up with the overwhelming lethality of death from the air.

But what do I know? I've never used my education as a way to get a subsidy from a think-tank, call for wars that should never have been thought and then divined ways to make my clusterfuck even clusterfuckier (when Fred Kagan suggest adding raisins you know we will have truly seen the path to victory).