Reply #17: For a military, which is after all a war-related entity,

[TayTay]

robotics and remote warfare make sense. It exposes less troops to combat, incurs less casualties, lowers the cost of fielding a large standing army and lessens logistical challenges of supplying troops under difficult or hostile conditions. The long term costs of care are less because there are less injuries and less exposure to trauma causing events. In terms of cost effectiveness, accuracy, discipline and lessening casualties, robotics and remote warfare make a certain sense.

It is horrible on the human side. War, however, is not about being nice to people. War is engaged in because there is no other way to bend an enemy to reason or to your will. War is not about being nice, it's about the application of deadly force.

Nation-building should not be done by the military. They are not trained for it. The military is trained to see 360 degrees of waging or preventing cruel war. (As Thomas Ricks says, there is no peace branch of the US military.) They are trained to crush a foe with force, deadly armaments and weaponry. That is what war and military action is about.

What is the military objective in Afghanistan? Why are we there with deadly force? What is the purpose of being there, how does force of arms and soldiers on the ground get us to our objective? What is the end result? Is the military necessary or can a peace-time resource do some of this job?

We all want to save the people of Afghanistan. But is a large standing army, with all it's attendant costs and problems, the way to accomplish the goals that the soldiers at this hearing articulated?