Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
And you were questioning Trample's reading comprehension.....
This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.
However it encourages; "....special operations against high-value targets." Anytime Special Ops are involved you can be pretty sure "violence" is involved.
The USSR had a totally different reason for being in Afghanistan than we do. They were attempting to expand their empire. We are responding to the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. The USSR tried to take over Afghanistan. We are attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy.
We went into Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing can change that. What do you suggest we do now, just pull out and leave a HUGE void that will certainly be filled by extremists/terrorists? There is a reason Iran is funding and supporting terrorist groups efforts to de-stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Sure, we are, "attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy." However, the study shows our efforts (U.S. military intervention) are, "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."
So, we need to change what we're doing. In essence, we need to abandon, "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world." Instead, we should, "focus [our] priorities on improving 'civil governance' and building 'local security forces,' according to the report, referring to those steps as 'capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"
That is what the study says.