[LS]

And don't get preachy to me. There is simply no alternative to SOME sort of "nation building" when you defeat an enemy. The alternatives are: a) absorb them as subjects or slaves (the way the Brits and Persians did); b) absorb them and give them citizenship (some Roman, typical U.S. policy in many territories); c) return them to independence after a period of occupation in which they are ensured to be "survivable" and not a threat (Grenada, Cuba, the Philippines, to a lesser degree, Panama, Iraq); d) just leave and hope they don't return to pre-war conditions (Iraq after 1991).

There is also the Wilsonian approach which is to nation-build the wrong way by using arbitrary and unfair boundaries and groupings. Then there is the Truman/Marshall method which worked DARN WELL and thank God for it.

Anyone who thinks walking out of Afghanistan will not require an Iraq-type return in a few years---at a MUCH higher cost---is smoking something.

[Travis McGee]

Others have put forward a viable approach, so I'll repeat it. It does NOT involve “nation building” in a geographic area of tribal warlords that has NEVER been a nation, and never will be. That is a fool's errand, and doomed to fail.

The only viable alternative is to choose some tribal warlords to be our allies, build a powerful military presence there, and use it as a base for punitive raids and strikes against any new terrorist bases or training camps in the rest of that god forsaken region (not nation).

If you think we are going to stay in Afghanistan until that entire region sees the error of their thousands of years of history and joins to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with us.......well I just cannot fathom the depth of your naivete. If you and Mcrystal carry the day for now, we are going to lose a lot of great troops for no gain, before we wise up.