Strategy For Defeat

IMO, one of the main reasons we will lose the war in Afghanistan is because our brave warriors are being told "not to win". It's the same basic political mentality that was used in Viet Nam; go and fight, but don't win, and whatever you do, don't hurt anybody. This is a blueprint for defeat.

Afghanistan is probably the most unique war we've ever fought, in that, it's not even a real country, and there's no real way to tell who the enemy actually is. Does the terrorist who simply runs out of ammo instantly become a non-combatant, and therefor, a non-target? It's an interesting way to fight a war, assuming you don't care how many of your own warriors make it back home in one piece. But if you do care, then they shouldn't be sacrificed simply for someones PC'ized political motives. They are far too precious a resource to be squandered away like that. I know that the nitwit who occupied the Oval Office before Odumbo had nation-building on his small mind, but that's a fools errand. Afghanistan is not a nation. It never has been and never will be. They're very happy living in the 4th century, and we should leave them to it. The Russians found that out the hard way, and so will we. The terrorists we've killed there so far would be just as dead using air-power alone. We have that capability.

So i find myself doing something i never do, that is, taking the same position as many on the Left take when it comes to this war, albeit for very, very, different reasons. If you won't let highly-trained warriors do what they've been trained to do, then bring them home. Now! If you want "hand holders and baby sitters" instead of warriors, send in the Peace Corp. or comrade Odumbo's "civilian army of volunteers". And, if you want to build Afghanistan into a "nation", send Jimmy (peanut brain) Carter and his carpenters, and bring our brave fighters home. Now!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121330893