Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Sure, but how, the devil's in the details.
|
More critical is something else. The strategic objective. Vietnam was a losing effort for obvious reasons. There was no smoking gun. No strategic objective. And no exit strategy defined by a strategic objective. Without all three, then victory is virtually impossible.
Smoking gun is obvious. But what is a strategic objective?
Desert Storm is a perfect example. The strategic objective was clearly defined by an educated president: liberation of Kuwait. Those who wanted military objectives contrary to that objective advocated an invasion of Baghdad. That would have been a disaster because it was not the strategic objective.
Same applies to Afghanistan. Long before anyone can define a victory or solution, first, one must define a strategic objective. And exit strategy.
Number one in that paragraph - the strategic objective - is getting bin Laden. As was bluntly described here only by a tiny minority nine years ago. And what our extremists routinely avoided to protect their political agenda: when do we go after bin Laden?
Taliban is an obstruction to target number one. Pakistan, that has insufficient reasons to drive out the Taliban, makes the world safe for bin Laden.
So do we invade Pakistan as if it was Cambodia? What made it so easy for Pol Pot to replace Sihanouk? There are consequences of doing what looks good, in detail, without a comprehensive long term plan defined by the strategic objective. In Pakistan, those consequences include nuclear weapons. Consequences if action - every detail - is not defined by a strategic objective.
Balkans so easily solved because Clinton defined a clear strategic objective. Desert Storm succeeded because George Sr (with Powell’s and Scowcroft's assistance) clamped down on others who wanted war without one. Deja Vue Nam. A strategic objective defined only by body counts could only be a defeat. Therefore details only made things in Nam worse.
The ‘leave by boat’ example is valid only if we surrender. Declare bin Laden as the victor. Are you ready to post that conclusion?
I'm not. But then I had no illusions about these consequences back in 2003 when I was so god damn nasty and blunt about it; when lies were advocating a disaster called Mission Accomplished. We are in this mess for the reasons I was posting back in 2003. And why I kept asking the same question every year afterwards: when are we going to go after bin Laden? Those manipulated by details or an extremist political agenda let their details - and not the strategic objective - define what they would do.
Was I too vague then or now?