|
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 11:52 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
If the policy is bad then the policy is bad... no further analysis needed.
If the policy is good then the speedy commencement of withdrawal is absurd.
If we have a vital national interest in play then that interest should be pursued with seriousness.
Sending a bunch of men and material to Afghanistan and bringing them right back is ridiculous and not going to happen.
Our geo-strategic and/or moral interests are not going to be served by a fly-by policy. Our presence has little weight without commitment.
The whole, We are going and pulling out in 18 months thing is thrown out there as a sop to the dumbest people on Earth because... hey, it might work on a few folks. It makes no sense if it's true and it's offensive if just a casual instance of the dreaded okey-doke.
You cannot say we are pursuing the very safety of the nation then, as a sop to the most credulous war opponents, say we aren't pursuing it very hard.
It's insulting. All that was promised was that there will be a minor troop reduction of some sort in the medium term marking the beginning of a wholly undefined withdrawal that might take 100 years. And that's all that could be promised because our claimed vital concerns are strategic, not tactical, That shit takes time and perseverance.
Tossing out the bone of a bogus and rhetorical wind-down that does not (and must not) exist in the fine print makes the speech as dignified as an infomercial.
If the policy is good then defend it without childish mid-direction. Tell the truth... that the policy is incoherent if we are not in it for the long-haul with success (permanently changing aspects of the whole nature of Afghanistan and Pakistan) as a precondition of withdrawal.
DEFEND THE REAL POLICY.
|