Read time: 1 minute

More Troops In Afghanistan: Policy Or Distraction?

Is there a need for more US troops in Afghanistan? What's the policy? Wag the dog?
Views:

This is not a post about whether we "need" more troops in Afghanistan.

The question is, what is Donald Trump's policy in Afghanistan? Have you stopped laughing yet?

The MSNBC panel this morning included Malcolm Nance, and he too wonders.

MALCOLM NANCE: The pros are that we really have to, in some circumstances, and this may be the one, have to stabilize the government of Afghanistan and the Afghan national army. That has been the mission we've had ever since we did our intervention there. That is nation building. That is going to take a lot of money, a lot of resources. The cons are, we are not just fighting a group that can be destroyed. There's not a victory the way that Donald Trump may see it. This is a culture that you are fighting. These are people who live there and will be there long after we leave that place. So until we can make some gains that are culturally acceptable, works in the tribes and a government that can support itself, we'll be there a long time. I'm not sure whether more troops is the solution.

It's adorable how this whole panel continues to talk about the war as if it isn't a huge Wag the Dog distraction from TrumpRussia.

Oh and by the way, since we'll be there another 15 years at least, how will we pay for it? Will the war delay the tax cut for billionaires until we balance the budget, fund our troops and also their needs as veterans?

Just kidding.


More C&L Coverage

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.