To flip that around: Israel has been communicating for decades that terrorism will be responded to with disproportionate force. That is exactly *why* Hamas launches attacks. So we can't say that Israel's conventional response is a deterrent.
I think the idea that Afghanistan experienced 'relative stability' prior to U.S. withdrawal is rev…
To flip that around: Israel has been communicating for decades that terrorism will be responded to with disproportionate force. That is exactly *why* Hamas launches attacks. So we can't say that Israel's conventional response is a deterrent.
I think the idea that Afghanistan experienced 'relative stability' prior to U.S. withdrawal is revisionism. U.S. forces may have been safe, but 2016-2018 were extremely deadly for Afghan civilians. The political system had no public support: The 2019 election had a turnout of less than 20%. The state was always situated precariously on the back of American occupation.
I agree that the withdrawal was a catastrophic disaster. I agree that long-term thinking is necessary — if the invasion had been managed under the philosophy that Petraeus espouses today, I think it *may* have enabled genuine success.
But what threw Afghanistan into the dark ages was the ruinous invasion that was unleashed on the country in 2001. We provided some of them — mostly those in the cities — some freedom but no security, in the name of pursuing our domestic priorities. We pivoted to a misguided effort to gift them democracy only after the quagmire began.
I think there are situations where foreign intervention are necessary and good. I think there are few, if any, situations where occupation can attain strategic goals or benefit local populations. You certainly seem to disagree.
To flip that around: Israel has been communicating for decades that terrorism will be responded to with disproportionate force. That is exactly *why* Hamas launches attacks. So we can't say that Israel's conventional response is a deterrent.
I think the idea that Afghanistan experienced 'relative stability' prior to U.S. withdrawal is revisionism. U.S. forces may have been safe, but 2016-2018 were extremely deadly for Afghan civilians. The political system had no public support: The 2019 election had a turnout of less than 20%. The state was always situated precariously on the back of American occupation.
I agree that the withdrawal was a catastrophic disaster. I agree that long-term thinking is necessary — if the invasion had been managed under the philosophy that Petraeus espouses today, I think it *may* have enabled genuine success.
But what threw Afghanistan into the dark ages was the ruinous invasion that was unleashed on the country in 2001. We provided some of them — mostly those in the cities — some freedom but no security, in the name of pursuing our domestic priorities. We pivoted to a misguided effort to gift them democracy only after the quagmire began.
I think there are situations where foreign intervention are necessary and good. I think there are few, if any, situations where occupation can attain strategic goals or benefit local populations. You certainly seem to disagree.