Centerfield

Occasionally, it becomes necessary to change the way that the military does things. The most common approach is to have a military disaster first. This has the "advantage" of makimg it obvious what needs to be changed. (Although it doesn't necessarily help in figuring out what to do instead. Unless your opponent has just demonstrated it on you.)

If, however, you are trying to get ahead of the curve, the big challenge is to figure out which pieces of military history to now ignore. In this case, Rumsfeld et al. messed up the challenge.

I suspect that the safest way to approach that challenge is to have reasons, beyond "it's old fashioned", why a particular practice is no longer relevant/necessary. And, from what little I could see from a distance, they did not.

the big challenge is to figure out which pieces of military history to now ignore

Like the bloody military history of the Khyber area and the FATA/NWFP, the failure of almost everyone to do well there militarily against the Pashtun and others for centuries, the fact that much/most of it lies in Pakistan, and the inadvisability of pouring troops into it without an explicit go-ahead from the nuclear-armed Pakistanis? And the unlikelihood of getting that?

The problem with Afghanistan is that most of the problem is not really in Afghanistan. It just comes over there to play.

The problem with Afghanistan is that most of the problem is not really in Afghanistan. It just comes over there to play.

Or supports the Afghan economy by sending money over there to pay for its imported toys. (As in drugs.)

All so true. The only thing that gives us any kind of chance atall is that most of the people are on our side. Unlike the British Imperial or Soviet experiences. And Pakistan being on our side. So far. It'd be easier to keep it up if we could do some deal like with Turkey, where they were allowed to sell much of their product to drugmakers.

Want a big surprise of a data item? Much of that poppy crop IS sold legitimately to Big Pharma companies. Where do you think our legit codeine and morphine and such comes from? Yeah.

Can't just stamp out the crops entirely because it really is a legitimate crop, and the Afghan economy really needs the revenue. Bit of a quandary, that.

Pakistan may be "on our side" theoretically, but in practice it's a shaky government with a lot of warring internal factions, one that does NOT control all of its own territory, and there's only so much they can do without risking internal meltdowns and civil war.

I agree with Jon (group gasp). The generals were saying those high numbers for a reason - they knew what it would take, and W ignored it.

HOWEVER, so did Congress. They knew the number of troops. They had the same info W had, or at least most of it. So, if our focus should have been Afghanistan all along, and Hussein was a threat but we did not have the time or resources, why did Congress (both Dem and Rep) give him the go-ahead?