Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnolia
I'm going to leave the first part alone because I don't think it makes the decision any clearer. There are lots of things that both parties have done in this conflict that I'm not 'okay with.'
When you say 'finish the job right', I'm not sure what you mean. More of what we've been doing, more DA raids and increased troops, more COIN projects and more outposts in more provinces? I think we've tried plenty of all that.
'Getting out' is going to require some kind of squirmy negotiation, with this looking like a painful bump in that process.
Based on history and Afghan culture, I think this war was headed for an end based on political accommodation from the minute it started. I see our negotiations as an avenue to get there even as they appear morally poisonous and doomed to hold little weight once we withdraw.
|
You can continue to study international affairs all you want. I have a Master's Degree in it. But that degree does me no good without reliable experience to back it up.
I believe when TR stated finishing it up right he means (TR correct me if I misinterpreted) we need to go in with the power of not just DoD, but every other department and clean house. Have you ever studied the Powell theory?
Either we go in with everything we got, and ensure there is a clear winner, much like WWI and WWII, or we go home. If we had done that from the start then things would be very different. Do you believe there would have been any way Europe or Japan for that matter would have turned out the way they did after the war if there hadn't been a clear unadulterated winner telling everyone what to do and how it would be done?
There is another theory out there called "give war a chance" that clearly highlights how not allowing one belligerent to win, and by stepping in with peacekeepers/peace enforcers only draws out the conflict and kills more people because one belligerent wasn't beaten into submission.
So in review, go in hard with all you have, decimate your enemy, or don't even bother.