... would be my choice in Afghanistan. Leaving 5,500 behind seems to me like just giving the Taliban more targets to shoot. Go big or go home. If you don't have enough troops to carry out decisive offensive operations then what's the point? They know you're going to leave soon anyway, all they have to do is wait you out. Unless you're willing to stay indefinitely, the war is lost, so get out now and stop taking casualties.
Maybe he's just doing it so the total collapse of the Karzai government happens during someone else's administration.
4 comments:
If you haven't decided (and acted on it) to win, then you have decided to lose.
Yes, you're right. Pushing it off on his successor is exactly what he's doing:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/15/obama_successor_to_inherit_afghanistan_conflict_128430.html
Gah. What a waste. Aside from the first 6 months or so of "catch Bin Laden", this whole fiasco never had a clear purpose, or any way of deciding when to stop. Since then it has been a waste of money and lives.
"When to stop" is when you win. And if you haven't defined what 'win' means before you start, then the whole exercise can't be anything other than a waste of lives and money.
And that's the thing about the Democrats and RINOs always whining about "exit strategies" -- by the very nature of the demand for one, it is an active refusal to win, and a guarantee of wasted lives and money.
If I recall correctly, the original intent was to establish a government in Afghanistan conducive to peaceful, civilized behavior. Once it was determined that it was impossible without a permanent American garrison, we should have committed to staying indefinitely.
Post a Comment