"We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it." That's Time editor Rick Stengel on his new cover story.... which is coverlined "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan," and has a portrait of a woman brutalized by the Taliban. The story contains this: "As the war in Afghanistan enters its ninth year, the need for an exit strategy weighs on the minds of U.S. policymakers. Such an outcome, it is assumed, would involve reconciliation with the Taliban. But Afghan women fear that in the quest for a quick peace, their progress may be sidelined.... For Afghanistan's women, an early withdrawal of international forces could be disastrous." So... which is it? That sure sounds like an argument-and, you know, a very moving and affecting one!-for something like a permanent or at least extended occupation. Making things a little more complicated? The new issue also has an article by expert-without-portfolio Joe Klein, which goes: "Afghanistan is really a sideshow here. Pakistan is the primary U.S. national-security concern in the region." So now what am I supposed to think while I'm not going on summer vacation because it makes our children stupider?

If you're going to spend the day digging in on the just-released 75,000+ reports from the U.S. military provided by Wikileaks, and why shouldn't you, you should start with their mirror site, as their main site has gone down due to massive, crushing fascination. But first! It's time to learn the Afghan base acronym list and figure out who's all fighting whom. Here are a few other ways to dip your toe in: what the data reveals about reconnaissance drones; how they show that "the Pakistani military has acted as both ally and enemy"; and, that old chestnut, where in the world is Osama bin Laden. Here's some unhelpful response-talk from the White House! "Wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan." Oh, well then, let's ignore... the data from the U.S. military? (An organization that, by the way, works for us. This is our information.) The White House also said: "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information." Sure! That's why Wikileaks withheld more than 15,000 of the reports, which will be released when "the security situation in Afghanistan permits." Let's not forget, as Guardian editor David Leigh points out: "All this information is historical, ending at 31 December 2009. Nothing in it can endanger current military operations."

Once again, we're having that magical moment where the world-from the President on down-is up in arms over a scandalous piece of magazine writing that pretty much no one can read. Rolling Stone's profile of General McChrystal, the top man in Afghanistan, is now big-Drudge-banner, front-page Times news. But the magazine isn't on stands yet and most likely it won't be on the website for weeks, as is the top-down military strategy of RS owner Jann Wenner. (This was the bizarre situation we found ourselves in a couple years ago, when the magazine published the world's most compelling story of Britney Spears' meltdown.) [UPDATE Bad news! The McChrystal profile that was being hosted as a PDF by Politico has now been taken down, after much yelling by Rolling Stone publicists. Here's a small, fair-use excerpt.] Oh, and the content? "The amazing thing about it is there's no complaints from McChrystal or his staff about the administration on any substantive ground," reports Spencer Ackerman. It's just a bunch of boys being petty-though he predicts the General will be scolded but not fired. So, two strategies aren't working: McCrhystal's press strategy and Rolling Stone's web strategy. Over at RS, according to outside traffic measures, pageviews are way up-but unique visitors are way down over the course of the year. Lots of photogalleries, you know. UPDATE: Annnnd it's finally online! Mazel tov to the web people at Rolling Stone.

After much searching, in the summer of 2021 we found Afghanistan napping in a small hut that had been hastily built into a bombed-out former mountainside. "I wish it never happened. It was totally a nightmare," said Afghanistan. "Sure, we called the Sudden Money Institute, those people who try to help lottery winners who live in trailers to not go crazy, but they were annoying and they kept talking about 'trusts' and 'foundations' and interest ratings, so, whatever, we eventually just blew them off." READ MORE