Is that the idea that everyone including the GOI wants large amounts of American forces there for any longer than absolutely necessary is highly lacking a realistic assessment. Everyone wants the same thing for a variety of different reasons. The difference is to be found in the fact that some don't like it when the world doesn't move to their beat. A wise approach is to consider what can be done while maintaining a forward momentum towards a long term solution.
This doesn't fit to well with those who think that
A: The world can go to heck in a handbasket and well still be able to avoid suffering for it because we our US
B: How can we fund our five thousand plus govt gimme programs if we actually have to spend money trying to help stabilize countries who may not be able to do it on their own(for a variety of reasons)and which if we don't could and probably will cost us much more in the long run
Let me ask you a question. If you are hired to run an advertising campaign for blue shoes and get the contract for 3 million then two months after you start the company decides it isn't happy because the results aren't what they want them to be. And lets just throw in that one week after you got the job there was a world wide boycott of blue shoes because black is the new blue what would you tell them.
A: ok here's your money back sorry bout that
B: You have to give it a little more time because we're working behind the scenes to make blue the new purple
Cwhatever your answer is since i'm pretty sure you won't pick either A or B)
As to that sometimes simulations are good for telling you that you might have to adjust your expectations in order to match them to the given scenario
Bookmarks