Replies

We perceived the war against Japan and Germany as an existential war, meaning pull out all the stops to utterly defeat the enemy, even unto the nuclear option. During our occupation of those countries, there were no sizeable bands of fanatical adversaries who enjoyed popular support and safe havens in neighboring counties.

Both Japan and Germany saw themselves as modern nation states and could be governed as such, whereas Afghanistan is a patchwork of quarrelsome tribes who love a good fight.

Korea is a somewhat different kettle of fish, as in it was not a complete defeat, but South Korea is a cohesive society amenable to being ruled as a democratic nation state.

In Germany, our troops were not constantly attacked by Nazi fanatics. Any such people left were dead, imprisoned, had nowhere to hide and no safe harbor. Ditto for Japan and South Korea. The Taliban and their ilk attack our troops and then can run to safety, first with locals, then in neighboring countries, especially Pakistan. Too bad Pakistan has the Bomb. It’s a never-ending war with our military getting maimed and killed on a regular basis. Zealots that they are, the Taliban and their Islamist friends and foes in-flight will not give up. They can’t be eradicated, given the terrain, popular support and safe havens across the border.

Germany, Japan and South Korea are all accessible by sea. By air, no over flight of not-so-friendly countries is required. Look at at a map of Afghanistan. Just getting in and out of there is no piece of cake.

It’s true we still have troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea. In the context of the Cold War it made sense to have them stationed in those places. It still does, given China not bring our friend and our having stupidly made Russia into a quasi-enemy. We also still have military in Kosovo (nice location in the event our relationship with Turkey grows too sour). None of our military in these places are under constant assault by local militia. In Afghanistan, they were.

I don’t think we should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place unless absolutely necessary. If the Taliban refused to cough up Osama and friends, and bombing the daylights out of them did not convince them, then fine. Go in, defeat them, install their old king again, declare it a constitutional monarchy, then leave and let them have at it, but with the stern warning that giving safe haven to terrorists again will result in more severe punishment. No cups of tea, no nation building, no girls’ schools or rainbow flags.

As for how we withdrew just now, what a joke, an unfunny one. Who planned this? Was there a withdrawal plan? It’s sad when the bumbling UN does a far better job at withdrawal than the US of A.

As for Iraq, if we were so concerned about WMD, we should have gone in, defeated Saddam, installed a friendlier Sunni dictator in his place, and left with a stern warning that he lives and stays in power at our pleasure, and if, like Saddam, he gets too big for his britches, he does so at his peril. You can’t create a civil society with a Jeffersonian style democracy in either country (Afghanistan, Iraq). The proper ingredients simply aren’t to be had in either country.