So why not just avoid the escalation with its accompanying bloodletting and devote those funds to paying off the Afghan war lords (and the Taliban) right now? Put then on the CIA payroll right now and have them hunt for Bin Laden, while they're at it. It think it would make a heck of a lot of sense from a costs benefits point of view. "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
So why not just avoid the escalation with its accompanying bloodletting and devote those funds to paying off the Afghan war lords (and the Taliban) right now?
One way to to this might be for the US to implement policies that guarantee top prices for opium products.
Oh wait... The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
But shouldn't Afghanistan be etched on the grinder?
You could make this really bad by drawing Obama as a butcher pouring GIs into the grinder... En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I think the new initiative of McChrystal is overplayed. I don't think they're going to implement a direct analogue to the 'sons of Iraq' strategy. It's possible that this is just a tool to pressure the Afghan government to play along. And otherwise, the surge can still make sense from a push-pull perspective.
The problem is the fucked up nature of the government and the secret ops that have already been ongoing, as well as the wrongheaded focus on the drug side of the equation. The strategy would be much simpler for the US military if it got into the trade itself (officially).
If religion be the opiate of masses, what then be opium? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
the problem is that I can't work out what it's supposed to achieve. I read somewhere that for counter-insurgency tactics to work they'd need half a million troops in Afghnistan, let alone what they need for Pakistan. Going from 70 - 100 thousand is not a useful gesture, it's simply putting more troops into harms way. They have spent the last 7 years teaching the Taliban effective ways to fight the NATO troops who are stuck at the end of a ridiculously long and fragile supply train. Casualties have been rising considerably and now we are giving them more targets to aim at.
Afghanistan is a political problem, not a military one. Obama may have punted on the military issue, but he hasn't even begun to realistically address the political issue. Viceroys do not cut it. What is the strategy ? What is the military there to achieve ? What is the endpoint ? what are the waypoints that can reliably dictate interim tactics ? Does he know ? Does anyone ? Seriously, has anyone asked these questions and got sensible answers ? keep to the Fen Causeway
I can't work out what it's supposed to achieve.
Oh, that's easy. Business for the techno-military complex (ie. surveillance drones, Predators and assorted UAVs) "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
Emphasis added.
The whole thing is just pointless. The Taliban and AQ live there. They ain't going anywhere. Eventually the US will leave and they will still be there. And when the US leaves the government of Afghanistan will fall. Again.
And the Taliban will take-over.
Again.
