On the other hand, we are pouring money down a rat hole in a country that really isn't a country. As you point out, no one has ever really been in charge of Afghanistan. The central government in Kabul has limited power and influence. It is a poor country that will never be really viable or embrace democracy. Nation building won't work.
Instinctively, Trump favors the latter course rather than continue the investment of American blood and treasure. But Mattis and McMaster favor a continued presence and an increase in the number of troops. Tough decision.
How do we look at Afghanistan without considering the poppy fields and their influcece on a world wide basis?What about the problems we have with heroine worldwide?
Is it instinctive, or does Trump realize we’ll never win in Afghanistan, given the current strategy?
Perhaps it is more instinctive for McMaster and Mattis to not to throw in the towel?
Just some considerations on who is thinking strategically.
I think if we decide to stay in Afghanistan, we need to come up with a policy defining just what we are doing there, and for how long, what the milestones are, and which milestone we’ll use to finally leave.
Never been one to quit a battle, but it’s time to leave Afghanistan. What have we accomplished in the dozen or so years we’ve been there? We won a world war in five years besting the Germans and Japanese. We can’t win a war with a low rated third world cesspool?
Do you agree that the only way to win or stabilize Afghanistan is to go to war with Pakistan? The fighters all pour across the open border and then run back for refuge and resupply. This has always been the case, against us, the Soviets, and the British of Rudyard Kipling’s poems version.