>>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/barack-obama-and-pentagon-split-on-afghanistan>>
>>I think the commanders would stay there 15 years if we let them.
>
>SNIP
>
>That view is held in ignorance. This is one area I can speak to with personal knowledge and experience. In the 80s before inactivation, I worked for General Bean (9th Inf Div), Budge (9th Inf Div), Shalikashvili (9th Inf div), and Swartzkopf (I Corps), I do know a few still. Senior military commanders want out of combat or combat areas MORE than civilians do. They see the risk first-hand. It is wrong to believe they would stay there 15 if we let then. One thing they do not want though is to create a mess and walk away knowing that it will get worse and other soldiers will have to return later and be placed in even greater risk. All you are doing in that case is passing the buck.
>
>I've told you that before but perhaps it was one of the times you were not fully aware of what I wrote or just plain do not remember. I do not mean that as an insult or to stir up trouble, but it is clear that you do not remember many discussions.
>
>Just in case you've forgotten, here is a reminder from a source you will read of how wrong that statement is:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/politics/campaign/29TEXT-SHALIKASHVILI.htmlOK, fair enough. You clearly have a lot more first hand knowledge of military commanders than I do. So I will concede that what I said may have been ignorant.
Not related to your point, it does seem that a broad shift is underway toward winding down in Afghanistan and Iraq. People are asking why we are spending so much money in those countries when we have so many economic troubles at home. Why are we spending so much in Kandahar instead of, for example, Phoenix or Las Vegas? We ought to be able to find a good use for a trillion dollars a year or however much exactly we are spending for those military operations.
