What is credible about George Will's argument that we should just go back to the failed strategy that led to the disaster of 9-11?
U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.
So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
As for the retired Marine General; the credibility of a doctored "e-mail" and its source aside, he suggests putting "hunter killer teams" along borders and in suspected Al Qeada strongholds. Aside from the OBVIOUS strategic impossiblity of such a strategy, this does not sound like the well thought out logic of a Marine General.
How would such teams be able to be supported? How would they infiltrate Al Qaeda strongholds? The REALITY is that this is a naive proposal that can only sound logical to the uninitiated and uninformed.
Sorry, but this is far from a compelling argument but rather more of the same naive logic that got us 9-11 in the first place.
The REALITY is that the Bush strategy as espoused back in 2001 to promote democratically elected representative governments and promote economic development and education systems is far more viable than the naďve notion that one can fight terrorists from the safety of offshore naval assets and missile firing drones. They ignore the reality of how good intelligence is obtained and the difficulty in infiltrating terrorist networks.
I am fascinated when people argue for the same failed strategies of the past purely for the reason that too many of our military are dying fighting terrorists and fights should not last beyond two years.
I guess this same failed strategy is okay if the people who do the dying are the innocent civilians like those who were lost on 9-11 here on our own shores rather than a professional military force trained to kill within the geography where the terrorists are to be found.
It just doesn’t make much sense to me and many others; but this is the fast food mentality of a nation that has gone soft in the head and has the collective memory of a lemming when it comes to the events leading up to and culminating in 9-11.