Nailed it!
It’s been said before, “Sometimes War is the answer. It depends on the question.”
I don't really mean to disagree with Professor Hanson, but by definition was IS a military solution.
And be magnanimous to the defeated — after the war, not during the fighting.
The Roman treatment of defeated Carthage is not a very good example of magnanimity in victory.
To be fair, this wasn't Scipio's fault.
The “solution” is unconditional surrender.
Um, what if it is one or the other?
Every possible consensual government in Afghanistan would want the US and other westerners out, and for the government to be pro-Islam.
The PC pretense that terrorism is only endorsed by tiny tyrannical minorities has some truth in Iraq or Pakistan (where, actually, terrorists are unpopular because they won't stick to killing westerners or Jews, rather than as such). But there is little sign of that in Afghanistan.
Is our bottom line that they Afghan people get whatever they want, even if it happens to be "us dead", or is our bottom line that we will defeat terrorists, regardless of how popular they are? If the second, then we ought to be more realistic about governments in Afghanistan. That they we consenual would be nice, if readily achievable along with our other objectives. But that they refrain from attacking us and do attack terrorists, in actually our bottom line.
We should be entirely clear - that means large portions of the Afghan population and probably clear majorities of it, will always view the governments we can live with as traitors and lackies of the west.
Anyone think that Obama has the stones to see a war like that through to the end? I sure don't. And if not, then why exactly are we asking young Americans to get killed over there?
The Brits won several wars in Afghanistan though nothing much changed after each victory.
Is there a military solution?
Obviously the enemy thinks so, otherwise they would surrender.
Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out. Links:
FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/victordavishanson/index NRO archive: http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI1MQ== Pajamasmedia: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/ His website: http://victorhanson.com/
He said he needed 40,000 troops, yet he's getting only 30,000. I remember what it was like in Germany during the Carter years. My units really struggled at 80% of authorized strength.
When you're at 80%, you're actually at a bit more than 60%. Why? There's "sick call", family emergencies, and other duties that detract from training. Even though the units in Afghanistan will be more focused on the mission, the objectives will have to be scaled back to meet the reality on the ground.
As a platoon leader, my best training occurred during Tac Evals, particularly those from the Air Force (my ADA battalion's mission was air base defense). For 3-4 days, Battalion HQ had to leave us alone...we belonged to the Wing Commander. Evaluators would pay us a visit once during the time, and we'd put on a dog and pony show for about an hour. Then it was back to work.
I was able to focus on each squad for hours at a time, drilling them on how they'd be evaluated by Army evaluators. Other platoons used the time as a glorified camping trip, and it showed during future evaluations.
