Begin with the end in mind.
That would be particularly useful as the new administration contemplates its own "surge," this time in the remote wilds of Afghanistan:
...even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is. ((leaving troops there just to go 'Taliban hunting' during the spring seasons isn't a mission statement--it's simply an open-ended commitment of resources --Jemison))Especially since we relegated it to the backburner for six years while we pursued an optional war in Iraq--a country which, unlike Afghanistan's guests Al Qada, had never attacked the United States. Half a decade later, we are a much poorer, more exhausted nation now attempting to refocus on the "graveyard of empires." So before we pour what remaining resources we have into this venture, it would be extraordinarily prudent to ask: what end do we have in mind?Afghanistan has, after all, stymied would-be conquerors since Alexander the Great. It’s always the same story; the invaders — British, Soviets — control the cities, but not the countryside. And eventually, the invaders don’t even control the cities, and are sent packing.
Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”


No comments:
Post a Comment