"The original plan for a post-Taliban Afghanistan called for rapid, transformational nation building. But such a vision no longer appears feasible, if it ever was. Many Americans are now sceptical that even a stable and acceptable outcome in Afghanistan is possible. They believe that Afghanistan has never been administered effectively and is simply ungovernable. Much of today's public opposition to the war centers on the widespread fear that whatever the military outcome, there is no Afghan political end state that is both acceptable and achievable at a reasonable cost."So, why are these prophets without honour in their own country? (maybe because they cannot spell 'their' in the url?) The recent change in military leadership might afford the Supreme Commander the opportunity to trim sails to reach a safer harbour. One has but to read some of the President's explanation for accepting McChrystal's resignation to appreciate that he too recognises that one of greatest Nations faces a very serious threat from a nondescript horde engaged in a poorly resourced offensive.
"We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan. But Americans don't flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. We persist and we persevere. We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world. So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban's momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same."So, how does one see his resolve stack up against the egg-heads in 'thier'(sic) summation?"Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. So, no indication there that anything will change as respects WHAT they will do, merely HOW. Will that be a sufficient tactic to overcome Biddle & Cos concerns? After all, whilst the Rolling Stone article, mentions serious doubts and objections amidst some of the grunts and GI Joes there had been no real manifestation that suggested any lack of fighting spirit - rather the opposite in fact.
If we are to achieve Obama's vision - "We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world." - we have to abandon the policy of doing everything only as and where it is supported by Afghan desires and imperatives. We have to win despite their wishes; there is too much at stake to be risked by going along with a Nation that, demonstratively, cannot fully support and enrich itself.
If this means riding rough shod over the independence of another Nation, so be it. Already, too many have crossed into Valhalla. Charon must by now have sufficient payment as would single-handedly deal with cleaning up the Mexican Gulf.