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,
|
Yeah, host, that's my concern. Historically, big foreign forces didn't do well in Afghanistan. Maybe it's how those forces were used that was more important than the raw numbers, but I'm not enough of a military expert to know. I'm skeptical that what worked in Iraq with the surge will work in Afghanistan because it's a very different kind of country and society - though the basic idea of population-protection-based counterinsurgency is fairly universally valid. The issue is knowing the population well enough and understanding them to be able to implement that strategy in a location- and culture-sensitive kind of way. That doesn't depend on raw numbers, at least not above a critical mass.