Ok so I am sick, and I am a guy so I feel sorry for myself when I am sick, and when I feel sorry for myself, I don’t want (Mommy to make me) write. But, I also keep wanting to write shorter essays….that always turn into longer essays as I write them and find new devastatingly brilliant points to make and hidden wrinkles to point out. So maybe today I can write a short essay, although writing this long intro to why i am writing a short essay kinda fucks that whole thing up, doesn’t it?
There is only one reason to send more TROOPS to AfPak…to kill more people.
Killing more people was cutting edge warfare in 1940. Decimate you enemies ability to fight by killing his army and you win. But here is a cluemail for the Pentagon…it is not 1940, and this enemy doesn’t have “an army.”
Killing enough Afghanis to get them to stop fighting and surrender is impossible. Unless you kill all the Afghanis who are pissed at you for….trying to kill all the Afghanis. < deadpan >That could take a while < /deadpan >
The only way to ‘win’ in Afghanistan is to get Afghanis to reject the Taliban. (If they reject the Taliban, they reject Al Qaeda)
They say it will take 400,000 troops to kill enough Afghanis to win. How much do 400,000 troops cost?
Of course we won’t send 400,000 troops, we will send 10% of that and instead of killing enough Afghanis to ‘win’ we will just kill enough to send more people into the arms of the Taliban.
How much does 40,000 troops to kill just enough Afghanis to drive them into the arms of the Taliban cost? Long term?
How much does it cost to put a school, a clinic, and a vocational training center to teach people to build and staff a school, a clinic and a vocational center in each medium size town?
Which is more likely to get Afghanis to reject the Taliban?
Killing more Afghanis?
Or helping more Afghanis?
And why is this equation so hard to understand?