But that would be imperialism, telling them how to arrange their affairs. Term limits are a good idea, but we can't tell a sovereign country they have to have them. I suppose if we went with the 6000 level that would allow us to hold Bagram that would allow for the possibility of reversing course later and having another surge of troops if necessary at some point in the future. Is it really worth it though? What would be the annual cost of keeping 6000 troops in Afghanistan I wonder, just to make sure that the Taliban can't take over outright.
This will probably draw a lot of heat, but I don't really care, so have at it.
I don't think we need to do anything else in Afghanistan except go home.
I
do think if things don't work out, the Taliban take back over and the terrorist training camps start showing up on satellite imagery again, then we need to do what we
should have done in the first place.
Go back in with both barrels cocked. Blow the hell out of anything that gets in our way. Destroy the infrastructure, knock down a lot of buildings, and publicly hang the leaders we can catch or the bodies of those we kill while we're trying to catch them.
Then, after telling the Afghan people that if they keep plotting trouble for the US, or keep letting knuckleheads like Al Qaeda use their country to plot
their mischief, we'll be back. And we won't be in such a good mood next time.
Then we go home. No troops in place to restore order, no techies to get the lights back on, nada. We just go home and let them mull it over.
I know it sounds mean and nasty, and would no doubt upset the tummies of voters whose guiding philosophy is, "As long as it gives me a warm fuzzy and doesn't require
me to do anything, it's OK by me".
But in the last 2,000 years, it's the only thing that has worked in Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, the Mongols came through, leveled anything that got in their way, and then went to India where they had more good stuff to steal than the Afghani's precious supplies of barren rocks and pestilence. The Afghans apparently thought highly enough of this that later they helped the Mongols in their efforts to cart away as much of India as they could load on the backs of their bandy legged little ponies, and if some of the loot fell into the pockets of the Afghans, so much the better.
Everybody was happy, except maybe the Indians.
I can't see why this wouldn't work today, only without the stealing stuff from India part.
Traditionally (since the formative years when the Prophet was putting together his little empire) Muslims have respected raw, unbridled force. When Muhammad went back to Mecca the first time, after he saw that the Meccans were well armed, numerous, and more than willing to engage in as much butchery as it took to get the job accomplished, Allah told him to go somewhere else to bestow his message of peace. Not one to disobey his deity, Mohammad and his followers went to a city where the Jews held sway, and finding them unprepared for massive slaughter and willing to compromise, he had a field day. A few false promises later, the Jews were dead, enslaved, or converted and Mohammad had lots of good stuff to restart his empire building plan again.
I can't help but feel that after a few rounds of," Hey, kids, let's all pretend we're back in the good ol' days when you read the Q'uran by candle light and the most advanced technology you can find is an oxcart!", they'll get the message and start telling their mischievous friends to go plot against the Americans somewhere else, then find another way to relieve the stress of murdering you neighbor after you steal his daughter.
Last time I checked there were still plenty of Indians left.
