Remember Afghanistan

[MOBIUS]

And their US training...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Stop being dumb, otherwise I'll have to change my opinion as to whether it suits you...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Soviet Union start with swift initial successes before they got bogged in a quagmire?

the USSR went in with a large footprint to pacify the country, and very quickly did a fairly big massacre in Herat, which led the entire country except for the Kabul communists to rise in revolt. The bear was trapped. The US, under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, went in with a small force, relying on air power and local allies, and so opposition never really spread from the Taliban to others. Of course there are enough taliban to give us trouble in some provinces.

OTOH, the success of this small footprint strategy was so great, that Rummy tried it in Iraq. Where it proved to be a mistake (IMHO). So the Afghan invasion DID result in a "quagmire-thingie", but in Iraq, not Afghanistan.

[Arrian]

LotM.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM.

-Arrian

I don't know whether I'm yet willing to grant LotM the celebrated "" but he's made an interesting point, and I shall have to ponder his logic for awhile.

[Arrian]

It's not like Rummy wasn't already predisposed towards favoring the "small footprint" approach. But I think it follows logically that the success of the Afgan operation (and I do think it was a success) enboldened him & those who thought like him, and made it easier to convince or override those who thought we needed a lot more troops in Iraq.

Add in the fact that we were unable to put together much of a coalition, and you get the "small footprint" approach for Iraq.

-Arrian

[Lawrence of Arabia]

remeber the alamo?