The Political Objective ....
appears to be this, based on GEN McChrystal's Guidance:
Quote:
Success will be defined by the Afghan people's freedom to choose their future--freedom from coercion, extremists, malign foreign influence, or abusive government actions.
The course of action appears to be:
Quote:
The ongoing insurgency must be met with a counterinsurgency campaign adapted to the unique conditions in each area that:
- Protects the Afghan people--allowing them to choose a future they can be proud of
- Provides a secure environment allowing good government and economic development to undercut the causes and advocates of insurgency
-----------------------
PS: The Longoria article reminded me of The Lost Patrol (yup, I'm a John Ford - Victor McLaglan fan), where RAF Air Control did not fare too well.
Somehow, I missed this earlier
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I
think, he would say.
- The war has to be won before anything else happens - and it is a war.
- That the policy (what ever that is) can only succeed once the Taliban(s) are defeated.
- All national resources should be harnessed to something that is of national importance.
.... so if winning in A'Stan is so important, how come the US is using about 1/8th of the resources it put towards WW2 or Vietnam?
- Agree.
- Don't think they can be 'defeated.' Rendered virtually impotent? Probably.
- I'd paraphrase that; "National resources should be devoted to to something in proportion to their gross importance."
... I think that's being done and I'd guess the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts through 2015 at about 30-33% of the WW II dollar cost (for the US, estimated at about 40%+ of GDP annually for over ~$6.1T total IIRC. Other Nations had it far rougher). No sense even trying to compare human totals and costs.
Compared to Viet Nam where we spent almost 9% of GDP average for the build up period, we're spending less than 5% annually today. In dollar terms, VN cost ~$518.B (in then dollars, ~$2.5T today) and Afghanistan and Iraq will come in at slightly less than that, I expect. Again, no comparison on personnel and casualty numbers. While Afghanistan is more complex than was Viet Nam, it's importance to the US is about the same and we're applying resources in proportion.
Carl would not approve -- I don't approve -- but we have little other choice in our response to things from South Asia or the ME due to pathetically poor planning on our part, said poor planning induced by an electoral system that moves the deck chairs every 2 years to at least some extent. ;)
That and a culture that tries to ignore things (and places. And methods...) it does not like in hopes they will go away... :D
Eet's hokay -- we cobble while hobbled well. Be nice if we didn't have to do that but... :(
(Yes, that's inefficient guvmint but we like it. Usually. :cool: )