I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of … sending a message that America is here for the duration.
Thereby announcing to our enemies America is not there for the duration.
If you aim to win, you aim to intimidate your enemies, so you always say you are going to fight to the bitter end and turn the place in even more of a barren wasteland than it is already. If you announce in advance that you are going to bug out should things get tough, things are guaranteed to get tough.
Obama is smart enough to know this, so I conclude that for political reasons, he aims to lose in Afghanistan, and aims to justify the defeat by a disturbingly large level of American casualties.
A lot of blogs call for a surge, a bunch of blogs are outraged Obama is not retreating already but the great wrong is staying there without intent to win.
Obama is smart enough to know this, so I conclude that for political reasons, he aims to lose in Afghanistan, and aims to justify the defeat by a disturbingly large level of American casualties. <— This is laughable.
Maybe in a flash of blind bias your autopilot just turned on too fast and too hard. I'll never know.
It's these little moments of LOL that keep this interesting blog from becoming what it can be.
Carry on.
Democrats of the Vietnam generation long for a re-run of Vietnam. Hillary has just announced that it is just fine with her for Karzai to steal the election – which would make sense if Karzai was militarily competent, a friend of the west, or committed to wining the war, but since he is militarily incompetent, an enemy of western civilization, and is fighting to lose, allowing him to steal the election is defeatism.