Originally Posted by
YardleyLabs
GWB oversaw a masterful invasion and overthrow of the Taliban, only to withdraw troops before the job was done, to free up resources for the war in Iraq. I don't recall ever reading about our troop levels in A-stan being reduced in any given year. They may not have been as high as some field commanders would have wanted (how often does a field general or colonel say, "I've got just the right amount of men and materials so if I don't win I'm a dolt and should be sacked."), but a strategic concern in Afghanistan was, and remains, that we don't have such a huge footprint as to appear like an invading/occupying force. The Afghanis are pretty peculiar that way and have a long history of showing their displeasure towards "occupiers." As a result the Taliban reestablished itself both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, becoming even more dangerous than it was before our original invasion. By what yardstick or unit of measurement do you make that claim? Before we invaded the Taliban had near total control of the country, ruled with an iron fist, and harbored jihadist terror camps, al Qaeda and UBL. Moreover, do you think it's just a coincidence that the violence in Afghanistan began rising measureably at the same time it was drastically ebbing in Iraq? Or could it be that we made Iraq a very unhealthy place to be a jihadist so they moved on to A-stan? Now it's time to do the job right. Unfortunately, now it will be harder than ever. Right. So if Obama isn't successful, it has to be Bush's fault. Who woulda guessed?
What's your criteria for determining when the job has been "done right?" What will A-Stan look like then?