This is quite simple actually. The problem is that people have no idea how to define "victory" in today's wars. We are already victorious. Staying and finishing the job implies that there is still work for us to do on the ground, but when the host government is as corrupt as what Vietnam's was in 1971, there is no job left to finish. Leaving a mobile force in the area will only leave them stranded without proper support as the host government continues to remain dependant on American muscle. And only part of this is and always was our fight.
Our mission in Iraq was to destroy the dictator and offer Iraq an opportunity at democracy. We accomplished our mission and it is up to Iraqis to follow through on their end for the rest. It will be their success or failure.
The same is true for Afghanistan. The Tali-Ban was removed from power and Al-Queda's base shattered in quick fashion and Osama Bin Laden is no longer a physical player. But the vast corruption in the Afghani government has not allowed the Afghanis to step up. Afghanis have failed. We have not. It is time to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we have to "fix what we break," especially considering that this region was already broke.
When it comes to this Afghani/Pakistani region, our roles need to be relegated to punishment. We should pull our troops out and strike as needed via UAVs, missiles, and special forces launched from sea bases.
Our role as a "nation builder" must be defined into more practical terms. We have to understand that no matter what we do, we can and always do come home. The failed will always be these people who can't fathom a world beyond tribal allegiance, religious extremism, and corruption and oppression.
Last edited by MSgt; 09-13-09 at 06:49 PM.
Yes, with one exception. As George Wills aptly points out:
washingtonpost.comAfghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?
If Afghanistan can find something it does comparatively well and with high enough value to absorb the shipping costs, then we should stay. Without development, we'll be fighting the same war for decades.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Unless they can offer some reason to think they can actually find bin Laden and actually cause serious harm to Al-Quaeda by remaining there, we ought to pull out and be honest in our failure.
Also if I was waiting at a Burger King for close to 8 years...I'd be a little pissed off and I don't think that would be unwarranted.
Last edited by Ikari; 09-14-09 at 11:04 AM.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
Bin Laden had it right; I was hoping that 9-11 would prove him wrong; I guess I had too much faith in the American people's ability to remember anything past the last episode of Survivor.
Do me a favor, when you find one historic example of a war being fought without mistakes, without cost and without sacrifice in less than a year, get back to me okay?