The Taliban collection (2006 onwards)

[Bill Moore]

I had a few random (very pedestrian and expected) thoughts on this topic https://www.brownpundits.com/2019/02...exit-to-chaos/

Based on general principles I think you basically nailed it.

Without knowing ANYTHING about the various layers of secret planning and execution going on right now, just on general principles (losers donÂ’t get to dictate terms, winners are not bound by promises they made, Trump is an ignorant conman, etc) this is not going to end well. There WILL be blood.

Beyond the obvious corruption on the US side there is the issue of ideological incompetence; the US is neither a capable imperial power, nor an innocent spectator with no interest in meddling in far away countries. And somehow its processes are so designed that it is easier to waste a 100 billion per year than it is to sit back and figure out what the aims are, where the carrots and sticks are most likely to work and now to apply them.

Our problem is not staying power, few nations can match the U.S.'s political will, means, and endurance to commit to enduring conflicts like these. I know the common misperception is we don't have staying power, but show me another nation that intervenes in the affairs of other nations with the tenacity that we do?

I find it hard to imagine that this could end up as a US “win”. As a US citizen, I will be happy if it does, but I am not holding my breath.

I think our President could use some mentoring on leadership. Sometimes a bitter pill goes down a lot easier with the right words. Not everyone can be a Churchill or Regan, but no one should spew out national security policy decisions by Twitter. This behavior is absurd for a national leader. He needs to understand the sacrifice thousands of Americans and our allies have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Then it will become clear he owes those who sacrificed more than a policy by Tweet. He owes them an explanation and his sincere gratitude for their sacrifice. The blame for the poorly conceived policy does not belong to those doing the fighting.

The President’s instincts may be right. Withdrawing may well be the right decision since all these adventures were in pursuit of unrealistic policy aims that wasted trillions of dollars. This great distraction (I’ll clarify) and diversion of resources allowed more serious threats to our nation to expand elsewhere. I now question LTG McMaster’s claim the answer to our problems (for terrorism) is not the 0’Dark Thirty response. Maybe it is the best response to prevent attacks on the homeland. You kill those planning to execute without committing a tremendous amount of resources to transform foreign cultures. Gen Mattis’s claim we have to build while we fight should also be suspect. This approach resulted in significant mission creep, a creep that exceeded our means and accomplished little. This is what I mean by distraction and diversion of resources. We should have, a should continue to employ forces to kill al-Qaeda and ISIS. I know the counter-argument, what happens if you leave? We’re leaving and whatever facade of stability we think we created will probably fall apart anyway. At the end of the day, the locals have to sort out the power arrangements.

There is a very uncomfortable moral hazard associated with pulling out. I don’t think there is a way to withdraw without pulling the rug out from our partners feet. They put everything at risk to support us on the assumption we would stand by their side. With our current immigration policies and bitterly divided political parties, it is unlikely we will offer them an alternative home. Once again we face with no good options, just less bad ones. On the bright side, this could be a catalyst to bring our political parties together when it comes to foreign policy. What principles we stand for as Americans seemed to be increasingly questioned around the world, and maybe within our own borders. We need Congress to perform its balancing role more than ever.