SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RMF who wrote (37503)9/30/2009 10:55:46 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
It is POSSIBLE that an additional "40,000 troops", as you propose, might be able to eventually (how long though? Ten more years? Twenty? Thirty?) secure most of our goals there.

But I believe it is also POSSIBLE that it might not do so. (I believe that's more then just a little possible.)

IMO, we have two main questions to ask ourselves:

1) Is the 'game' actually worth the candle? (Obviously the answer to that would depend on HOW LONG and HOW COSTLY....)

And 2) The larger strategic context. Without a victory against Talibanic elements and radical Whabbist fundamentalism INSIDE PAKISTAN... then anything resembling 'victory' in neighboring Afghanistan isn't really possible because the ability to get support and resupply a short distance across the (unmarked) border means that even at worst all the Taliban will have to do is out wait us. At 'best' they can bleed us like Vietnam, and make it so costly to us that the effort begins to appear brain-dead and extremely counterproductive.

It's possible that we need to turn to other (more devious and more fundamental) strategies to put a serious hurting on them and bring about their ultimate failure and complete collapse.

Perhaps thoughts such as these need to enter our strategies:

(What policy would be most likely to achieve our long-term national interests?)

A) Let Shia Iran and Sunni Pakistan carve up Afghanistan between them as they have so many times in history? (Thus, and perhaps not so incidentally, turning up the heat under the centuries-long Sunni/Shia schism in Islam... the old 'divide and conquer' approach? Or at least 'divide and neutralize threat' approach....)

B) Or encourage (or at least not oppose) Pastun nationalism (largest ethnic group and irredentist movement in the world after the Kurds to not have a nation) to unite into a Pastunistan... (thus splitting Pakistan and Afghanistan and - obviously - neutralizing the Pak/Indian conflict....)?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News