When the president broke his campaign promise last week and agreed to keep many more troops in Afghanistan after this year, many “experts” cited one word as the reason: Iraq.
It’s commonly agreed, and by me, that Iraq was NOT ready for the pullout of US troops and the rise of ISIL “proves” that.
But I would cite another word: Vietnam.
There, after so many years and so many dollars and so many lives lost, our military kept advising JFK and LBJ: "just 10,000 more troops, sir, and we can win this.” Well, we couldn’t and we didn’t.
In Afghanistan at 14 years, a war even longer than ‘Nam, and $638 BLLIONS spent, we may well see a repeat of Iraq. That would prove the Afghans aren’t ready to save their own country..and if that be true, why should we—at the cost of American lives and dollars???
I do not begrudge the military advising presidents as they do, that is their job, but sometime, someday America had to stop...and put those billions into our own roads and schools and needs here.
Neither solution the president faced was a good one. But not increasing our troops staying there has at least two advantages:
1—he kept his word, and
2—no more “collateral damage” as in the tragic killing of 21 children, patients and staff at that hospital we bombed “by mistake.”
I'm just sayin'...