...about President Obama's level of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. I think a better question would be about the American public's level of commitment. After all, Obama could be in office for as little as three more years. (He could be followed by an even more dovish president.) The American public, on the other hand, will be here forever. And, as we experienced in Vietnam, Americans have only so much patience for kids coming home in body bags. We're just not a warlike people. To paraphrase Chief Wild Eagle of the Hekawis from the old F Troop series, "We're consumers, not fighters."
Brooks says that most military experts believe this war is winnable. But when you think about it, almost any war is winnable, if you're willing to keep at it for 50 or 100 years, like John McCain famously said in the last election. Heck, Vietnam was probably winnable from a military standpoint, but we'd still be there now with probably no end in sight. A war has to be weighed against the costs, and it could take 50 or 100 years to build an Afghan nation. Who has the patience for that? Who would be willing to sacrifice their kids' lives for that?
Here's a better piece on the subject of Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
While I understand yielding to commanders on specific issues of engagement, I don't understand why the bigger decisions of the escalation or draw down of a war should be left up to the military. What commander worth his salt is going to say he can't win any war he's in at the moment no matter what the circumstances? It seems like that is why the big picture choices should be left to political leaders who don't have professional pride at stake in military conflicts in the same way commanders do.
Post a Comment