At ArcDigital Nicholas Grossman makes the argument that the United States will be in Afghanistan forever, its objective there should be in his words to “hold the line”, and that’s an adequate :
Americans want foreign military campaigns to go smoothly. Deploy → Sacrifice → Win → Leave. And if winning isn’t in the cards, then what’s the sacrifice for? Leave as soon as possible.
By that logic, the United States is losing in Afghanistan — or at least not winning — and should abandon the effort. But a simple win-loss dynamic is the wrong way to think about that 16-year-old war.
America’s not in Afghanistan to win. It’s there to hold the line.
He may be right but I think he’s rationalizing a course of action that’s happening for very different reasons. I think it’s more lizard-brained than that.
However, consider the implications of that policy. One of the things it means is that we can never reduce military spending below about $400 billion per year and in fact it should be substantially increased. It also means we will continue to tread lightly on Pakistan for the foreseeable future.
Well, there’s more than one way to hold the line. And if hold the line is really the objective, then we should probably create and resource an actual strategy that does that.
Lizard brained. I will most assuredly shamelessly rip that one off.
Your last paragraph is what flummoxes me. Again. That vs not being the president to lose…. and this from a guy who doesn’t hold politicians in high regard. I don’t get it.
Oh look. I just glanced at the TV. Our newest resident here at Quail West is on the 15th tee at the tournament in Scottsdale. -6 but getting there this early. Not good.