Non-victory makes perfect sense in the political context of someone whose idea of a solution is a ‘deal’

Read The real thing @ TBC.

America won’t be run out of Afghanistan. It will lose interest and walk away.

6. Nomenklatura:

‘Managing a conflict’, which means actually extending it for the mutual convenience of collaborators in Washington and Karachi, and continuously bleeding our armed forces to make it happen, is not what the US Armed Forces have ever been about, nor should it be. Only a politician who sees the US soldier as no more than an ignorant, expendable peasant could commit this error…

32. Armeggedon Rex:

Many have commented here at the Belmont Club and elsewhere asking something similar to: “If Obama were intentionally trying to wreck the U.S., without being immediately impeached, how would his actions be any different than everything we’ve seen thus far?”

At first I wrote these folks off as excessively partisan, but as time passes, and mind-blowing idiocies pile up, I’m thinking more and more that they make an excellent point.

50. wretchard:

The difference between what Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson did is an example of right versus wrong application. One gave you Korea and the other Vietnam. It’s easy now to forget the Iraqi sanctions regime, the Bosnian crisis, etc. were not obviously better, or carried on ad infinitum, necessarily cheaper in terms of human life than going in and doing something. But going in doing something created its own complications. That’s probably what President Obama is afraid of, to give him his due. Giving McChrystal extra men lets him change the game — which the general wants to do — but which carries the risk of introducing new elements. It’s like letting him shuffle the deck and re-deal. What does the President prefer? The devil he knows or the devil he doesn’t?

Advertisements

Comments Off on Non-victory makes perfect sense in the political context of someone whose idea of a solution is a ‘deal’

Filed under Idea War, The Forgotten War

Comments are closed.