Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sense I get, if the way I described the changes is correct, is that the introduction of a much larger force is setting back (or at least confusing) the winning of hearts and minds and force multiplication, encouraging a larger and more aggressive response from the enemy, and producing US and NATO casualties that might not have to happen,
|
Good point host. But we're also assuming either the enemy can/will respond in kind or perhaps they can be subdued? Or maybe we stay a little bit longer (with timeline). The idea being to involve and train local forces for handover. Something like that? Flat out leaving doesn't seem very prudent though either. What about afterwards? Infrastructure rebuilding etc. should be part of our exit strategy. Involing allies and partners seems like a good idea too.
What do you think host? Is there anyway out of it? Any good solution for all sides involved?
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."
"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"
- My recruiter
|