Originally Posted by RidonKs
yeah, i don't agree with this at all. by your logic, if at any point over the past eleven years the usa managed to reach a point of relative stability with a moderately trustworthy afghan government ally, they would have jumped on it to leave. i'm not sure if you believe that to be the case for both bush and obama admins but i think it's silly to believe either.
by your logic it wouldn't even have to be a truly sustainable stability. literally only enough to convince the american public that the place wasn't left in utter devastation and the troops left with their chins up.
seriously? that just strikes me as profoundly dubious reasoning, the sort you might see articulated by apologists for an apparently peaceful president that has done nothing to warrant that reputation. there clearly have to be more significant geopolitical reasons for staying than that.
I'm not following you here. I think we might be talking about different things. Are you talking about keeping a military base there? Because I consider the 1991 Gulf War over even though we have a base in Kuwait.
What I was talking about is that US presidents have great difficulty pulling out combat forces and ending wars that are not clear cut victories. They would prefer to kick the can down the road and have the next president have the problem.
there clearly have to be more significant geopolitical reasons for staying than that.
If we had gotten OBL in say 2005 and the rest of Afghan war went out about the same as it's been going, do you think we would still be there? I think there are significant domestic political reasons presidents stay. You've heard this story about LBJ?
In his recent biography of Lyndon Johnson, Flawed Giant, Robert Dallek writes, “During a private conversation with some reporters who pressed him to explain why we were in Vietnam, Johnson lost his patience. According to Arthur Goldberg, LBJ unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ and declared, ‘This is why!’”