"I've always supported taking out the Taliban's terrorist training bases over there and thought it the right thing to do, but I do wonder exactly what it is we have planned for the end game over there. Even the old Soviet Union was unable to pacify this country despite its proximity to it."
And despite a lot more troops on the ground. I agree, at this point I cannot envisage what 'winning' in Afghanistan would look like or how we are getting there.
I know one thing: winning cannot occur while the enemy has a ready supply of moral and logistical support in a neighbouring state where we cannot go.
And, also has control of The House
We have won- we're in clean-up and contain mode right now- Many many insurgents have been taken out, the taliban has been crippled-
YES they can still strike- like Rumsfeld said- they have a distinct advantage of only having to be right once, but we must be right EVERY single time in order to prevent an attack- the attacker who hides behind hte skirts of women and chilren, and disguises themselves as ordinary citizens ALWAYS has a huge advantage over a conventional army- however, do not mistake isolated attacks as a sign of our defeat or of losing- We've done very well against htem-
The press however zeros in on isolated events and presents it as though the enemy were victorious always, but that simply isn't the case. The press RARELY shows you all the attacks we've made against them and been succesful with- Our military has not lost a single significant battle in either Iraq or Afhganistan. http://sacredscoop.com