Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GoldenRivet
Lets look at it this way.
If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.
But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.
Same thing with the Taliban.
Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.
It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.
I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.
|
boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.
I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion.