Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
You mean the surge that further took the military focus off of the real war against terrorists and onto Bush's war thus causing the Taliban to get a stronger foothold in Afghanistan and resulting in a more deadly situation for them?
Yeah, I'll be sure to thank him.
|
I don't think your statement is accurate.
The Surge was successful for a simple reason, a good percentage of the people we were surging against didn't fight back. That result, combined with the continued pressure from our fighting men and women delivered real results.
As with any sales pitch there's strategy, luck and timing. I think the Surge might have had all three. Without the continued pressure though (or threat of) the other factors might not have played out, but we don't really know. Our military has performed admirably and should be given credit for the success, but like any campaign, the leadership shouldn't read too much into it lest they make mistakes by misreading responses to future actions.
I'm not sure this influenced Afghan policy that much, as there wasn't a clear strategy at the time. A short influx of troops wouldn't have had a measurable impact other then a small amount of pressure on the system.
The Taliban issue has been set for some time, and has deeper roots.
-spence
Hybrid Mode
