"As military strategy for winning a war the speech made little sense. You don’t need to be von Clausewitz to know that the commitment of 30,000 troops combined with the establishment of proximate date for the start of their withdrawal is not going to break the will of an enemy or destroy its center of gravity."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen.html
Ever loyal to Obama, Cohen would still have us believe that this speech was "adroit", i.e. it will pressure Karzai while leaving U.S. options open.
Afghanistan's Pashtuns, however, are not interested in "adroit". As observed by Scott Shane in a December 5 New York Times article entitled "The War in Pashtunistan":
"But even the prospect of an exit has hazards for the United States. The long Pashtun experience with war has taught them to favor those who look like winners, which is why the Taliban’s successes in the last few years have lured fighters to their side."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06shane.html?pagewanted=1&ref=weekinreview
The Pashtuns are sure to sense Obama's indecision, and Cohen's rambling op-ed makes little more sense than Obama's temporary intention to slug it out on the ground with the Taliban.
For America, the war in Afghanistan is just the war of ambitions. Now it is turn for Obama to play a military commander of a great army. He can not win for real - and knows that. But he can not miss this opportunity to exercise his power. And we all will pay for this.
ReplyDeleteI think, your expression "Obama's temporary intention to slug it out on the ground with the Taliban" means about the same as what I said.