Who Wants to Be The President of Afghanistan?

Avatar

Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes (aka CJ Smith). 29 years old, happily married, adroit purveyor and voracious student of all kinds of information, theories, methods of inquiry, and forms of practice. Studying to be a priest in the Anglican Church in Canada. Main interests: military theory, diplomacy, foreign affairs, medieval history, religion & politics (esp. Islam and Christianity), and political grand bargains of all shapes and sizes.

Related Post Roulette

4 Responses

  1. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    More and more I’m beginning to fear that with regards to Afghanistan our only sensible option is to simply get out. I’m well aware of the humanitarian disaster this would cause of course what with the civil war and opression that would ensue. On the other hand I do not know for certain that America is 100% responsible for the plight of that region. Yes we funded the islamic warriors in the cold war but it was the Soviets who invaded and the country was a mess even prior to that. Unlike Iraq, where there was a tyrannical but orderly government before our arrival and then chaos after, I’m not sure that we’re morally obliged to turn the country into a pluralistic democracy before we can leave.Report

  2. Avatar Scott
    Ignored
    says:

    The country needs some sort of gov’t so that the Taliban and their Al Qaeda cronies don’t come back into power. I could care less if the Taliban want to enact a medieval style theocracy there but when they harbor folks that plan to attack us then I have a problem. I am 100% certain the US is not at fault for the plight of that region. It wasn’t the most stable country but was fairly stable until the commies over threw the gov’t in 1978 and called Moscow to come in and prop them up.Report

  3. Avatar Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree with most of this. I’d only say that I see no reason that option#3 is in principle not compatible with Maj. Gant’s proposal. Or, to be honest, option #2, though the offensives would have to be judicious, and McChrystal would have to commit to a radically different vision than he outlined. But the extra troops to my way of seeing don’t preclude a tribal approach. As McChrystal and averyone else who looks at this for five minutes can see, it’s what more troops do. More troops can interact per Gant with more tribes, it would seem to me. But I don’t think McC-like numbers would be necessary for that. A few more a la your option #3 might be helpful, though. At this point I’m for anything that sends an unambiguous message to McC that he doesn’t have free reign to do as he sees fit (though maybe that goes down the LBJ road all the more…) My guess is Obama matches but does not go much above his early-2009 increase of 21,000. I do wonder how one would order a commander with a fully articulated strategy proposal for a specific situation to shift to a strategy that is at best a conglomeration of other officers’ views of the same situation without making a change of personnel. It would seem the most that could be done from the position of commander-in-chief would be to order the commanding general to be familiar with these other views and maintain some operational flexibility with an eye to integrating these other views into operations where possible. Beyond that, a change in command would seem necessary, and profoundly unlikely.Report

  4. Avatar Justin_Anderson
    Ignored
    says:

    If I was given a harem and student loan forgiveness, I’d so be there.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *