I haven't talked much about Pakistan because, if we can't send U.S. forces into Pakistani territory
I guess that depends on what one's definition of "send" is.
As with Iraq, we cannot achieve victory through military means alone. This was a lesson we did not learn in the Vietnam War.
The Viet Minh just might have actually surrendered in the 60's if the US didn't go with the tactics of; escalate bombing, stop bombing, hold peace talks, repeat.
The goal in Vietnam was to keep communism from spreading, not turn North Vietnam into the beacon of freedom South Vietnam had under Diem, so just bombing could have worked. And the"Viet Cong" was made up largely of Viet Minh, so there was less "home grown" "insurgency" to the South Vietnamese to fight against than it appeared.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
to them. It'll be almost impossible to stop the flow of people & goods back and forth between the various countries there, primarily on our minds the Pakistan & Afghan border.
But let me commend you on your post. Really good presentation & well sourced.
Our military definitely needs a bigger footprint but how it's done will make or break our future with the people there.
The people are tribal. Many if not most of them actually believe in some of the more unpaletable aspects of Taliban. I think if you approach the tribal & clan leaders without passing judgements on their beliefs, we can become trusted friends & help each other. I think if we just go in and try to impose our order & way of life on them we'll end up just like the British & the Soviets did.
I don't think that just simply invading other countries the way the U. S. A. has been doing for the past half-century, destroying these countries and killing, maiming or sickening their people is the way to go. What good will it do to get us into an escalated war with Afghanistan if and when we pull out of Iraq, or heaven forbid, we go into Pakistan?
I watched the McCain/Obama debate on foreign policy earlier this week, and, quite frankly, when they both started talking about "going in and kicking some butt", I immediately turned the TV to something else. I think it shows what both of these guys are made of. Neither of them is POTUS material, imho.
outwards. That is to acknowledge we are not at war so much with a country as with a movement--radical islam. Start with a policy of not allowing radical islamists to reside in the USA. I define a radical Islamist as someone who wants to establish sharia law in the host country or who belives in violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.
So if you area a radical islamist, no more green cards, tourist, work or student visas. And if you are already here but not a citizen then legally deport.
There is no point in fighting radical islamists in Afghanastan or elsewhere while allowing them to live in the USA. When the message gets out to the Islamic world, that you cannot immigrate to the west if you are a radical islamist, then I predict things will change "over there".
Comments :
Lets hope Afghanistan doesn't turn into the Weimar Republic.
I guess that depends on what one's definition of "send" is.
The Viet Minh just might have actually surrendered in the 60's if the US didn't go with the tactics of; escalate bombing, stop bombing, hold peace talks, repeat.
The goal in Vietnam was to keep communism from spreading, not turn North Vietnam into the beacon of freedom South Vietnam had under Diem, so just bombing could have worked. And the"Viet Cong" was made up largely of Viet Minh, so there was less "home grown" "insurgency" to the South Vietnamese to fight against than it appeared.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The people there are tribal & the borders don't mean anything
to them. It'll be almost impossible to stop the flow of people & goods back and forth between the various countries there, primarily on our minds the Pakistan & Afghan border.
But let me commend you on your post. Really good presentation & well sourced.
Our military definitely needs a bigger footprint but how it's done will make or break our future with the people there.
The people are tribal. Many if not most of them actually believe in some of the more unpaletable aspects of Taliban. I think if you approach the tribal & clan leaders without passing judgements on their beliefs, we can become trusted friends & help each other. I think if we just go in and try to impose our order & way of life on them we'll end up just like the British & the Soviets did.
Frankly,
I don't think that just simply invading other countries the way the U. S. A. has been doing for the past half-century, destroying these countries and killing, maiming or sickening their people is the way to go. What good will it do to get us into an escalated war with Afghanistan if and when we pull out of Iraq, or heaven forbid, we go into Pakistan?
I watched the McCain/Obama debate on foreign policy earlier this week, and, quite frankly, when they both started talking about "going in and kicking some butt", I immediately turned the TV to something else. I think it shows what both of these guys are made of. Neither of them is POTUS material, imho.
The sandbox approach is to start in the USA and work
outwards. That is to acknowledge we are not at war so much with a country as with a movement--radical islam. Start with a policy of not allowing radical islamists to reside in the USA. I define a radical Islamist as someone who wants to establish sharia law in the host country or who belives in violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.
So if you area a radical islamist, no more green cards, tourist, work or student visas. And if you are already here but not a citizen then legally deport.
There is no point in fighting radical islamists in Afghanastan or elsewhere while allowing them to live in the USA. When the message gets out to the Islamic world, that you cannot immigrate to the west if you are a radical islamist, then I predict things will change "over there".
,
name the enemy, win the war