These deep thinkers are pikers, however, when you read this nuanced argument that turns the sophistication dial to 11:
The U.S. presence is the Afghan government's safety net, protecting it from the need to take responsibility for the fight against the Taliban. Until Karzai's government sees its survival at stake, it will not play its best game.
So let's fail in Afghanistan. Fail in the right way now, and the Afghans will have a chance of succeeding.
Wow! Reduce our troop strength and pull them out of combat. The Taliban would be doomed. It's so obvious now!
If only such wise advice had been given to us in 1943! Can you imagine the pummeling we would have inflicted on the Nazis if we'd reversed our build up in Britain and kept our troops over paid, over-sexed, and over there, refusing to cross the English Channel? That would have taught the Brits a lesson. A little less tea production and a little more munitions, you free loaders, and you can do it on your own. I mean, it isn't like we guaranteed Polish sovereignty in 1939.
I've been impressed with the big-brained arguments thus far, but this is truly impressive. I bestow the title Ultra Nuance on this new iteration of sophisticated retreatism. Fareed Zakaria is no doubt kicking himself that he hadn't thought of this line first.
