|
As long as people use only a dichotomous vocabulary of win/lose,
the alternatives are also dichotomous: victory/surrender.
Withdrawal is a viable alternative, and ultimately it is what is going to happen...
unless the ever-lasting Korean demilitarized zone suddenly becomes the model.
How's that working for us ?
The current administration was handed the existing situation in Afghanistan, but not the situation in Pakistan.
The military use of drones as "gun ships" is a choice that was made more recently.
It is a choice of a losing strategy, both strategically and tactically.
The Pakistani people are already incensed by it,
and eventually they WILL find a way to fight back.
Thus, another ally becomes the enemy.
Setting absolute goals, such as "kill or capture" bin Laden is another one of those traps.
If such is the an all-consuming necessity for the US, drawing him out
into a non-militarized public life would be a viable tactic.
But his public death really wouldn't make that much difference for us,
except perhaps for a short orgasmic moment
(a la Saddam Hussein for Cheney, Bush and a few voyeurs)
How such a US military "withdrawal" is viewed will depend
on the public vocabulary of the administration.
Obama may make a big deal publicly about a token number
of troops being withdrawn in July,
and how much "progress" is being made.
But it's not creditable without the assumption that
our military activities must continue for years.
(2014 = not on my watch)
The viable alternative is to take Gen Petraeus off the hero's perch,
allowing him and his immediate subordinates to personally save face,
and give a new military leadership the clear directive that
the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan,
so a new officer staff can plan and act accordingly... without
personal concern that comes with "not on my watch"
|