Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I responded to your question. I pointed out that cleaning out the areas inside Pakistan is not the issue. The issue is that we do not have, and have not ever had, enough troops in Afghanistan to provide even basic security or stability within the country.
Recently, I heard that we also don't have enough troops to repel the Taliban's anticipated spring offensive. (Again, that would be inside Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.) On this point, I acknowledge that the person who said this is a demonstrated incompetent when it comes to issues of military planning and strategy, so if you say he's wrong I suppose I'll believe you.
Or, instead, you could just keep asking the same question and pretending that I didn't answer.
|
If you can't clear Pakistan all you are doing is keeping troops in Afghanistan forever- you can't "win." The DEMS here who actually know, or read things, have admitted that the additional troops are on the order of 10 or 20, 000. Between the countries with combat troops there that wouldn't be anything. (As an aside, Bush can't fuck up a war being fought by so many countries anymore than he "failed" to get Osama in the mountains.)
The only valid argument anyone here made was GGG's point that the type of troop that we need for the 20000 was largely troops that are all tied up in Iraq- that is some specialists. But you aren't making that point, are you?
Threaded Mode