Trump trying to pull out of Syria, and reduce presence in Afghanistan

[Karha of Honor]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Like you can ever truly plant your flag in a region like that with ever shifting tribal alliances.

[TGLS]

You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan

His alternative was: "Pay off the Taliban with millions of dollars and they (might) hand over al-Qaeda. The United States stands to lose significant credibility if this were to be revealed (akin to Iran-Contra), and the Taliban continues to do terrible things in Afghanistan."

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

That rhymes.

[Darth Wedgius]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Like you can ever truly plant your flag in a region like that with ever shifting tribal alliances.

True enough, but whatever comes up probably won't be as bad for us as Al Qaeda. They don't have to like us, they just have to not try to kill us in large numbers.

[Karha of Honor]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Like you can ever truly plant your flag in a region like that with ever shifting tribal alliances.

True enough, but whatever comes up probably won't be as bad for us as Al Qaeda. They don't have to like us, they just have to not try to kill us in large numbers.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

[CharlesPhipps]

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

But not necessarily their people.

[Karha of Honor]

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

But not necessarily their people.

terrorists are impotent actors in the US period.

[CharlesPhipps]

Except to people killed by them, yes.

[Karha of Honor]

Except to people killed by them, yes.

it's a giant country with a lot of people. When i think of a potent threat i think of one that can take over a state or an US city.

[CharlesPhipps]

it's a giant country with a lot of people. When i think of a potent threat i think of one that can take over a state or an US city.

That was the attitude before 9/11 which effectively wrecked American institutions, economics, political standing, and its image of itself.

And before Pearl Harbor, people believed the same about Japan. It was a Chinese problem.

And the South is on their side of the Mason-Dixie line.

And so on and so on.