Maybe that is the point.

No "national level" capitulation, imposition of will (We are liberating, not occupying!???), and no civilian administrative follow-up except an "expeditionary" repair crew.

What does it mean when clear, hold and build might actually mean clear, then pass the hot potato? When the Romans took over, they brought stability, trade, civic improvements, etc.. that, at the worst, co-opted their enemies, and at the best, brought something substantive---a major change in society, economy and possibilities.

We are, in these countries, replacing vicious dictatorial governments, in eternally treacherous multi-national conflict zones. Afterwards, can we really expect instant New England style-self-governance and all the historical external conflicts to flake-off?

Assuming we have a long-run interest in these places, they will require years to evolve to some better stage. No matter how much I want Iraq to quickly attain peace, stability and prosperity, the situation may remain a challenge for many years to come, even with (or despite) Iraq's substantial underlying oil resources. Certainly, it is rapidly becoming Iraq's problem to define it's future, but there are substantial internal and external challenges that will remain to challenge their possibilities.

But what to make of Afghanistan??

What is the "strategic" objective, and are we aligned, resourced and trained to deliver it? Does it fit the landscape?


Steve