Wednesday, May 30, 2018

How To Win

I had something else in mind today, but then I came across an article in the WSJ describing how we're going after not just the Taliban, but their sources of money and production. Here's the snippet that blew me away, although it shouldn't have. Emphasis mine.
President Donald Trump’s South Asia strategy, announced in August, loosened restrictions on American operations in Afghanistan, an effort to break the stalemate in a war now in its 17th year. Under previous rules, for instance, U.S. aircraft could target militants if they were threatening or fighting allied troops. (Special-operations forces also direct airstrikes at key figures in insurgent and terror groups, such as Islamic State.)

Under the new strategic-bombing policy, U.S. jets can attack insurgents wherever they are found, and attempt to destroy Taliban weapons caches, command facilities and revenue sources.
In other words, we've decided to defeat the enemy instead of running a social justice hashtag campaign.

For the love of God, how is it possible that anyone thought you could win a war by allowing the enemy to pick the time and place of battle? Then again, wining wasn't something mentioned a whole lot in the Obama Administration.


ligneus said...

Obama = Chamberlain, Trump = Churchill. Funny how that works, that when things get really dire, the right man is there waiting.
Actually that's unfair to Chamberlain, he was an old fashioned honourable man who took Hitler to be the same, Obama is a Communist/Islamist and worked to take America down using the euphemism 'fundamentally transform' to disguise what he was up to.
Trump has undone his 'works' to such an extent it's as if he was never there. I would think he would be seething with anger but he has no depth, a light weight Narcissist. When Trump's terms are over and given some time I can see him being regarded as the greatest President since Washington.

K T Cat said...

ligneus, I wonder if Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf. If he had, he wasn't an honorable man, he was an idiot. It was all there in black and white - Hitler was determined to conquer Europe for the German people. If he hadn't, why didn't he? It's not like it was James Joyce's Ulysses.

ligneus said...

Good point, I have no idea. Guess I was bending over backwards a bit to make some allowance for his background and the culture he grew up in, the old English gentleman whose word was his bond, and he probably saw Hitler as the same kind of person. When you think of the millions of people that Hitler swayed, he wouldn't have had much trouble with Chamberlain. Also he wasn't alone, there was a lot of pro German feeling in UK, Churchill was thought of as a criminal and still is by many for not wanting Britain to join forces with Germany. Once he was PM he still had to fight the Establishment, much as Trump is having to. Much anti Semitism in the English ruling classes, I think like obama and his cohorts, it was considered a sign of intelligence and superiority to be so, so he was on the 'wrong side' of that too. As well because of a long British tradition of working with the Arabs, there were strong ties with them. As an aside, it couldn't have been universal, I remember as a little kid if I or one of my brothers did something wrong we'd be admonished with, 'You little Arab!' [Have I told you that before? This getting old, if I were a horse I'd have been put out to grass by now.] Anyway, after all that, I've always thought of Chamberlain as a bit of an idiot! Shouldn't have been allowed outside on his own.