It may be more nuanced than those two choices; in fact I hope it is.
If one starts with the definition of insanity being "continuing to the the same thing while expecting different results", then yes... either draw down or enhance.
What I cannot gauge is what a change of mission might look like; and I would believe that larger question is what is causing the delay.
If a decision is made to change the goal (desired end state in Afghanistan) or the means we choose to get there (strategy), then the composition of the force and the strength thereof would change based on a new strategy/goal.
I would HOPE that at this time, the President is reaching out to any and all experts to review the current goal/strategy, and take sufficient time to reset as needed based on best current analysis.
The military is not tasked with identifying the goal, they are tasked with achieving it. To that end they must work with the Commander in Chief to identify the appropriate strategy; taking into account both military AND political factors (e.g., what MacArthur and/or Truman failed to adequately take into account in Korea, resulting in drawing China into the conflict).
It is well past time to review why we're in Afghanistan, what we want to accomplish, how we intend to accomplish it, and therefore what the force needs to look like.
Considering the investment so far, a few weeks or months to "get it right" is appropriate.
Laughing, CalOldBlue. It is certainly more nuanced then stated in the blog post. But as the post is written to be read in ninety seconds or less (the average length of time a reader will stay on a site) a mere skeletal thought is placed on the page.
The region is imploding. Our military may be harvesting the fruit but it is not the root cause of what plagues the entire region.
I firmly believe our military is both shield against and magnet for terrorism. Right now the magnet is taking a heavy hit.
Tammy
Commenting by HaloScan
