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.

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.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?

All of them are scared of punching me, equally. Because i got bulging nuke muscles and amazingly long arm reach and special forces quick deployment boots on my feet.

[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.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?

All of them are scared of punching me, equally. Because i got bulging nuke muscles and amazingly long arm reach and special forces quick deployment boots on my feet.

But you had all those and people still punched you,and it's usually been the people screaming about punching you.

[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.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?

All of them are scared of punching me, equally. Because i got bulging nuke muscles and amazingly long arm reach and special forces quick deployment boots on my feet.

But you had all those and people still punched you,and it's usually been the people screaming about punching you.

All those people...

Just some kindergarteners.

[clearspira]

No modern invader has ever won in Afghanistan. Not the US coalition, not the British Empire, not the Soviets, no one. And every generation seems to bring another fool that thinks they can. Or to quote Rambo 3:

Colonel Trautman: You expect sympathy? You started this damn war, now you'll have to deal with it.
Zaysen: And we will. It is just a matter of time before we achieve a complete victory.
Trautman: Yeah, well, there won't be a victory. Every day, your war machines lose ground to a bunch of poorly-armed, poorly-equipped freedom fighters. The fact is that you underestimated your competition. If you'd studied your history, you'd know that these people have never given up to anyone. They'd rather die than be slaves to an invading army. You can't defeat a people like that. We tried; we already had our Vietnam! Now you're gonna have yours.

In fact, I feel like using a second one, courtesy of the Comedian from Watchmen: Its all one big fucking joke.

Because that is what it is. We are sending good men to die in the sand with no victory in sight, with every precedent saying that we cannot win, with a good portion of the civilian population not wanting us to be there not least because our collateral damage is high, and no politician really being able to give a reason as to why anymore. Oh, and the next time someone tells you that there isn't enough money for cancer research or feeding the homeless, just look at the multiple billion dollar cost of this folly.

[Madner Kami]

Such a war can only be won, if you bring the civilians onto your side. Remember "Hearts and Minds"? If your main strategy consists of terrorism, then you ain't better than the terrorists you want to root out to begin with and the civilians will pick the foe they are familiar with over you.

As for why you can't win such a war by modern armies is really rather simple. Modern armies simply lack the manpower, the boots on the ground to do it. That is assuming you do not want to de-populate the area and re-settle it with more loyal subjects, of course, which was a rather successful tactic in the past, but usually (and gladly) is off the table nowadays.

[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.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?

All of them are scared of punching me, equally. Because i got bulging nuke muscles and amazingly long arm reach and special forces quick deployment boots on my feet.

But you had all those and people still punched you,and it's usually been the people screaming about punching you.

All those people...

Just some kindergarteners.

Didn't we already cover the scale of the threat?

[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.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?

All of them are scared of punching me, equally. Because i got bulging nuke muscles and amazingly long arm reach and special forces quick deployment boots on my feet.

But you had all those and people still punched you,and it's usually been the people screaming about punching you.

All those people...

Just some kindergarteners.

Didn't we already cover the scale of the threat?

I think both the potential and real. I am not gonna live in 1984 because smaller nukes might exist.

[Darth Wedgius]

Such a war can only be won, if you bring the civilians onto your side. Remember "Hearts and Minds"? If your main strategy consists of terrorism, then you ain't better than the terrorists you want to root out to begin with and the civilians will pick the foe they are familiar with over you.

As for why you can't win such a war by modern armies is really rather simple. Modern armies simply lack the manpower, the boots on the ground to do it. That is assuming you do not want to de-populate the area and re-settle it with more loyal subjects, of course, which was a rather successful tactic in the past, but usually (and gladly) is off the table nowadays.

I'm not sure enough of the civilians of Afghanistan will ever be on our side, due to cultural factors. AFAIK the Taliban wasn't beloved there, and still some people who hated the Taliban would rather have them than infidels, or would rather take the whole pie for their tribe through force than whatever piece elections would give them.

It's true that there are alternatives to occupation, but, if occupation/nation-building is out, that leaves us a choice of either accepting occasional massive terrorist attacks from that threat or doing something nastier about where they launch from.

You might be able to take out the hosting government by bombs, but in the case of Afghanistan eliminating the Taliban probably wouldn't have stopped Al Qaeda.

You could carpet-bomb enemy cities. Drop leaflets giving them 72 hours to evacuate their largest or capital city and then boom. You wouldn't destroy every building in the city but you could destroy every major government building, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings. Yes, there would still be civilian deaths,during and after the bombing. Then drop more leaflets saying that next time it might not be the same city, and there won't be a warning. Call it the Lovelace Doctrine -- "Don't fuck with us."

If there is a less-threatening country that would love to invade the threat but is militarily unable to, blow up the threat's weapon depots, armories, and infrastructure and tell the invader they're clear to take their best shot.

And those are some of the more humane methods I could think of. Maybe we'd never go that far. But if attacked enough, whether using massive terror in self-defense leaves us no better than them or not may not matter to enough people. What I've outlined above is way more humane than MAD ever was, and MAD was doctrine for decades (admittedly to prevent a greater perceived threat).

[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.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?

All of them are scared of punching me, equally. Because i got bulging nuke muscles and amazingly long arm reach and special forces quick deployment boots on my feet.

But you had all those and people still punched you,and it's usually been the people screaming about punching you.

All those people...

Just some kindergarteners.

Didn't we already cover the scale of the threat?

I think both the potential and real. I am not gonna live in 1984 because smaller nukes might exist.

I don't understand. Are you saying you don't want Big Brother because of the potential for nuclear terrorism? If so,I thought we were talking about foreign policy and nation-building (?).

[Andrew Joshua Talon]

If we don't have a clear goal or idea of victory in a warzone, why should our troops be there?

People lauded Obama for pulling out of Iraq, but not Trump for pulling us out of wars with no real clear reason for us to stay there.