padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I know the War In Pakistan thread was kind of a default AfPak thing but since they are after all, despite the contiguous Pashtun belt on both sides of the border, different countries...and since there's been a big push going on (USMC!) for a while now and since it's effectively Obama's war and I highly suspect we're stuck there until at least the next American election cycle and since McChrystal's been in front of Congress and since it's a hot-button issue on American roundtable news shows where jerks in suits jabber at each other under the vacuous gaze of Wolf Blitzer and since the recent elections were a big steaming pile of shit, etc etc
I'll start us off
Steve Coll - Legitimacy & The Afghan Army
my own personal take (amateur, of course, as always), is that the U.S. (& our allies, esp. you guys & the Canadians, tho w/all due respect it's an American thing innit) could "win" if we were willing to put in enormous amts of $$$, time & most importantly manpower. but clearly we're not & I think for good reason in this case. also, perhaps more cogently, I cannot fathom how the benefits of "winning" - sure to be a hollow victory - would even begin to approach, let alone outweigh the costs. and the Afghans (meaning Kabul & the ANA) sure as hell aren't going to win it themselves. so, yeah. that Michael Howard essay Vim linked to in the Lib Dems thread was, I thought, pretty crap, but he nailed one bit dead on, that this whole deal would've been far better off as a police action/emergency/etc instead of decade-long occupation of the most unconquerable place on Earth. but, oh well...
I'll start us off
Steve Coll - Legitimacy & The Afghan Army
hey-o.There are several plausible scenarios, which range from bad-but-not-disastrous to holy-crap.
my own personal take (amateur, of course, as always), is that the U.S. (& our allies, esp. you guys & the Canadians, tho w/all due respect it's an American thing innit) could "win" if we were willing to put in enormous amts of $$$, time & most importantly manpower. but clearly we're not & I think for good reason in this case. also, perhaps more cogently, I cannot fathom how the benefits of "winning" - sure to be a hollow victory - would even begin to approach, let alone outweigh the costs. and the Afghans (meaning Kabul & the ANA) sure as hell aren't going to win it themselves. so, yeah. that Michael Howard essay Vim linked to in the Lib Dems thread was, I thought, pretty crap, but he nailed one bit dead on, that this whole deal would've been far better off as a police action/emergency/etc instead of decade-long occupation of the most unconquerable place on Earth. but, oh well...
Last edited: