|
[QUOTE=spence;709431]The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.
I believe what stcroixman meant by 100% commitment was, not only a government policy, but the full backing of the people. The USSR NEVER had that. It was a militarily enforced federation of irredentist minded citizens, most of whom didn't see Afghanistan as an important matter. We failed in Vietnam because our populace was persuaded that it was not worth American life. The war against the Iraqi "insurgents" was made difficult because they saw the left's portrayal of the war as another Vietnam and so hoped that continued resistance would, similarly, break the American populist will to fight.
Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.
"Nationalistic country" is redundant. All nations are nationalistic. And, if war is resisted change, war is not only a "habit", but a necessity for those entities who wish to maintain their integrity.
As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.-spence[QUOTE]
Sounds similar to the Bush strategy. As for NATO, without a US, Afghani, and Pakistani defeat of the Taliban, NATO, as already demonstrated, can do nothing.
|
Threaded Mode