One even said that, after reaching adulthood he had learned that everything he had been taught by his parents about how good America is has been proven wrong and that, in so many words, it was time we got what was coming to us.

Two does not a large enough sample to mean anything. But one wonders if hearing the mantra of the left all through school has finally accomplished what no enemy ever has – created a generation that hates us for who we are.

As I responded in my comments there: Power rushes in to fill a vacuum – if we create one who would we have fill it?

Again, it seems to me that the lengthy, detailed reply to the colonels reply by one TSAlfabet pretty much counters LTC Davis’ points by centering on the theme I have been advocating here about concentrating efforts on the local tribes who were the Talibans natural enemies, and whose tribal leaders are ACLU progressives by comparison to the Taliban. My only addition to TSAlfabets’ comments and where I differ with him and most on both sides of the argument would be that training costs and equipment needs for the Af Army are not as great as everyone envisions. This is because I would not worry overmuch about “training” an Afghan Army as I would instead arm the local tribes who already know how to fight and won’t need massive “training” or great numbers of our troops to train them. Who “trains” the Taliban? Seems they do pretty well on their own, doesn’t it? Thus said, the local tribesmen are no different–they’re no slouches and the game either. And with the disbursed tribes armed, there would be no need for a massive input of expensive logistical lift capability and trained pilots for a much smaller centralized national Army–same for ground transport/fighting vehicles. All of the “fighting” equipment will already be out in the field in the hands of the local tribes, negating much of the need for a logistical support train to support tribes who now can support themselves to a large extent.

That said, I would posit that a “Go Big” strategy would still be needed for a couple of years to stabilize things until the local tribes could be armed and bribed. This would be followed sequentially by a gradual withdrawal and implementation–or rather increased emphasis–on the kinetic “Go Deep” strategy once the tribes security concerns were stabilized. The two strategies are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.

(Also, if you haven’t already done so, you might want to go up-thread and click on the link I’ve provided to Mansized-Target. He has some interesting things to say on this subject you might appreciate.)

I saw your Sun Tzu quote above, what was it…“There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.” Sun Tzu.

Kind of backwards don’t you think? I mean reread it! The only nations that have survived at all were the ones prepared to fight for forever. The ones that wouldn’t fight are all gone. There used to be a very fine publication called The Historical Atlas of the World in 2 volumes. It was paperback and I still have my copies. Empires come and go. They mostly go when they decide to stop fighting.

But I am not an ideologue. I love opposing views. I welcome them. (unlike many here)

I am not afraid of them, and I will post opposing views to further the debate. Nevertheless, such countervailing opinions do give some serious substance to LTC Davis’s credibility that Dust or others questioned, do they not? It certainly got Hershel Smith’s attention, did it not?

Moreover, the link was given to interest the majority of right-winger’s here on lex’s site, who would otherwise discount LTC Davis’s paper without thought… unless there were some opposing thought the coincided with their pre-formulated opinions.

I see Lt. Col Davis has responded to Hershel Smith. Read and learn more on this crucial subject.

Funny you link that article, as it would seem that Herschel Smith in his analysis of LTC Davis’ proposals fairly eviscerates the good colonel in his concluding analysis, thereby totally rejecting Davis’ approach as impractical and unworkable for a variety of reasons he so ably lays out.

You couldn’t have provided a better refutation of your Biden-like policy stance if you tried, flit. Thanks for the link!

LTC Dan Davis has an important and insightful, unpublished 63-page paper on Afghanistan strategy that is being passed around Washington circles. And it is making quite an impact at very high levels.

While certainly RHIP, dropping names/pay grades will never trump astute analysis of great importance. Just as paper covers rock, smarts beat rank. Intelligence is where you find it; it knows no rank or rate. Regardless of any and all attempts to discredit the messenger, it is the message where importance lies.

LINK

Related analysis from Captains Journal.