And that's why we found Osama? I am sorry, but it is still possible for us to lose wars.
It is possible for us to lose wars but that's not what I was talking about.
I was saying our technology makes our army very different from all others; ever.
If we never captured OBL and Afganistan became as tranquil as say Poland would that be a loss?
It is certainly embarassing that we haven't captured OBL but we've caged him up and he's had little to crow about for the past decade.
That's all fine, but it is all about costs and opportunity costs. With our deficits the way they are, I believe that it would be more beneficial if we cut those extra expenses, sparred some lives, and ended the wars.
Presumes that there would be a savings and seems to presume that the region no longer poses a threat to us and our allies. What's the opportunity cost for failing to prevent another 9/11? Blood and treasure are certainly central issues to consider but we are fighting very low intensity war now.
Morally and financially it makes sense.
See above. How much would you pay to avoid another 9/11? This if we left the region that we'd be able to shift resources (in large scale) away from the region? Do you think terrorists would use the region to plot and conduct more attacks? Is it moral to turn our back on the region while it is so unstable in light of thge fact that we helped unstabiulize it (not that it was terribly stable before) and that our departure would certainly energize the Taliban who've now begun focusing on the Pakistani arsenal as a goal?
As for another 9/11- I believe in a strong defense as opposed to a scattered offense.
Clarify.
We are fighting a very low intensity war in Afganistan. That's pretty much it. How is that scattered offense? I believe that in some cases offense is defense. As here. We are fighting there to prevent them from coming back here.
We can't go galavanting half way across the world every time there "might" be a threat because those threats will exist everyday.
Sure. But Afginistgan wasn't a maybe. Still isn't.
Furthermore, the argument stands that our occupation of so many other countries leads to further hatred towards us and an increase in threats- Robert Pape wrote a great piece on that a while back that I suggest anyone interested in the war read.
OK. So far being more antagonistic has yielded ZERO more terrorist attacks like the Cole, Khobar, Beirut, Emassies, 9/11. If occupying Afganistan and Iraq (the only two I am aware we've moved into in the last decade - in one of which we arew drawing down our forces) made more people hate us it also prevented more attacks. So, if others hating us means les dead Americans I support it.
Besides... given the argument that more hate = more threat and the facts that prior we had many attacks and after we've had none doesn't the argument seem flawed? The fact is this, in war it is better to be feared than loved. If that were not true Switzerland, Canada and Finland would be the world powers and no one would care about China or Russia. It ain't pretty but it is true. Think of OBL and his strong horse v weak horse.
As for what the troops can do at home? Again, help strengthen the defense
defense of what? troops cannot be deployed on native soil - that's illegal
as well as perhaps secure our own borders instead of the ones between Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.
The administration hasn't shown much interest in such a policy when they sue states who try to secure the border. And see above.
edit: Note that I fully supported going after the perpetrators after 9/11, I just think our mission there is now finished.
why?
as you noted - we don't have OBL
