No real US national interest in either place.
So in that sense it's a valid comparison.
However, we did have a very real national interest at stake in a forceful response to the Airplane drivers. The failures of Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton to properly respond to a series of totally typical Mid Eastern based probing attacks against the US or its interests for 20 straight years prior to the workup by said airplane drivers almost unarguably led directly to that attack in 2001.
Thus we're in Afghanistan because it was in the national interest even if being in the country, per se, is not in the national interest.
Thus, I suggest it is not a totally valid comparison. :(
Good article. I can understand why our pusillanimous
press ran screaming out of their buildings when it appeared. :D
Pity it didn't get published.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SteveMetz
I think there are times we need to intervene, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we should stay and try to fix things that are bad broke.
I agree. That's why I shuddered when Powell made the alleged pottery barn comment. My solution is that we break things well, let's stick to that -- don't go unless it's necessary, if it is, then go, destroy heavily and then leave, rapidly -- while dropping there lots of little cards that say "Now behave or we'll be back." Then mail the UN a check for the cleaning crew (okay, we need to do that in a softer, more cooperative and collegial manner but I'm trying to save space here with just the high points...).
Quote:
...We could easily have gone into Afghanistan, busted up AQ, and left. If necessary, we go do that every few years. It's what I've called the Israeli strategy. It would be a mental adjustment for Americans because we have this obsession with relatively quick and decisive resolution to security problems. Well, I think we need to get over that. The places that are the most trouble today are so screwed up that fixing them just isn't worth the effort.
Again agree but there are, I think, two problems. Both could be overcome with a little education, I believe. The first is that the western world believes -- and our opponents will use -- the pottery barn bit. The second is that so do many Americans. The second could be changed fairly easily for most Americans who cling to that model; simply point out the cost and ask them to do a cost-benefit comparison. There would still be a few who objected vociferously but not all that many. Americans as a collective are pretty pragmatic.
The first is a harder nut to crack. When you're the 800 pound gorilla, you don't get a lot of sympathy but I believe that if we state that will be the norm and the gradually ease into it over a few years (or incursions), it can fly. Certainly few if any are going to offer to help.
Now, all we need is ten years or so of foreign policy continuity... :rolleyes:
Re: the places most screwed up; Yeah, and Tom Barnett isn't helping. :)
Everyone one of those places is where the Brits and French drew lines on the map -- and the NKVD /MVD / KGB worked on for years. I envision all these old retired spooks watching CNN in Ekaterineburg and chuckling a lot... :(
Talk to a lot folks who've been there in the past
few years and they'll tell you we can re-invade in a few years.
They'll also tell you that if we leave too early, we will have to do that and it will be far worse then than it is now if we have to go back...
All the comments from JJ and Walrus aside, we won't get any more help in the future than we did in the past. None except for the British and the Australians are putting anywhere near enough money into their Armed Forces -- and the British are dropping steadily -- why should they as long as we'll carry the load...
Who said anything about a civil war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
I don't know about that. The Saudis would probably pick sides in a civil war. I believe we had less that 200 fatalities invading and about 3,600 occupying. The math seems fairly simple.
The basic problem with your comment is that the Saudi Army and National Guard are not strong on combat capability. That said, if they did and were in better shape in the future, would they be with us or agin us?
Math and war are a bad mix, should generally be avoided. Most 'metrics' have little bearing on the actual happenings and they prove little clarity. Particularly when as in the example you use where the time factor and the type of combat are discounted. Take the time period of the attack (officially 18 Mar to 1 May, 44 days) and any like period of the aftermath * and compare numbers. That isn't totally valid for several reasons but it's a far more valid comparison than is the one you cite.
I'd also note that those who predict a tougher fight if it has to be done again are talking about the invasion phase only...
Why would we invade and presume no post-invasion casualties? Are you now a convert the Steve's "Go in, break it thoroughly, then leave" strategy? Good! :D
* I say aftermath rather than "occupying" because while we may have been de jure occupiers in the eyes of many we haven't been effectively since the CPA stood down in June 2004 and absolutely not since the Maliki government stood up in May 2006. Not to mention that we have never been de facto occupiers, didn't have enough people to do that.