1.) The emphasis on civilian Washington taking its cue from the generals is reassuring. Micromanaging far-away conflicts from the White House doesn't work. H.R. McMaster wrote a book about how it snatched away victory in the Vietnam situation.
2.) Ditto the assertion that this isn't about nation-building. We can help Afghanistan build a better army than it's accustomed to having, because that will serve our national interest, but the culture of tribalism and misogyny is something Afghans are going to have to squarely face and deal with themselves.
3.) Mention of Pakistan's role as, at best, a disappointing partner in the search for regional stability is also good. It does Pakistan no good to claim that it hosts no jihadist training camps. We know better.
4.) Given that Trump's isolationist tendencies were a major part of his appeal to the former conservatives who suddenly decided, in 2015, to be nationalist / populists, what does this do to their public support for him?
5.) There is validity to the argument that goes, "We've been at this longer than we've ever been at any other war, and we're still facing the same basic problem. Doesn't that tell us that our basic approach is not getting us desired results?" But, given that Afghanistan is about as failed a state as there can be, the argument that bad actors rush into power vacuums holds greater sway, it seems to me.
6.) This will require a serious and constant look at our resources, given that it's far from the world's only hot spot.
I knew you'd dig it. Escalate, escalate, dance to the mission...
ReplyDeleteNever forget that Afghanistan is where empires went to die, but never of course us, not sweet, exceptional US.
ReplyDeleteRe: the question posed in point number 4, some response is coming in.
ReplyDeleteAnn Coulter:
It doesn't matter who you vote for. The military-industrial complex wins. Only difference: GOP presidents pronounce "Pakistan" correctly.
Ingraham:
Who's going to pay for it? What is our measure of success? We didn't win with 100K troops. How will we win with 4,000 more?
How do you change a society as Afghanistan? It seems to be already changing because of western influence. Hopefully our “new” S.E. Asia policy refrains from more than assisting the well being of central Governments.
ReplyDeleteAside note
Afghan society reminds me of the Afghan hound; aloof, proud, independent, highly intelligent, cat like, sometimes playfully childish, and also capable of being great service dogs. They are particularly fiercer than their looks and demeanor present. In the mountains of Afghanistan “pairs” of Afghan Hounds were used in “brace” to hunt mountain lions. One hound was trained to attack the hind quarter of the lion and when the lion turned to counter attack the second hound grabbed the lion by its throat. These were used in conjunction with falcons that first sighted and circled for the lion which was being hunted. In the 19th century afghan hounds became very popular. When they were first acquired from these mountainous areas the seller would train the hound to escape the western buyer and return to the seller so it could be resold.
So when you throw in those conservatives who because nationalist populist with all the supporters of the Bern and other peaceniks within the Democratic party, I'm not so sure ole Trust Gut is gonna be goin' in with majority support. A possible prelude to the body bag parade is going on in Columbus, IN as a fallen soldier returns to be buried in the prairie. Let's roll. What will victory finally look like?
ReplyDelete