I don't get why this guy even writes on military matters:
We literally spent billions and put U.S. trainers at risk to develop an army that's going to shrink away in two years. How is that not an egregious waste?
Look, I have questions about whether the Obama administration is being too optimistic about trends in Afghanistan to justify walking away as something more noble than running. But the fact is, as a general rule, there is nothing fuzzy about having a smaller military after you win a war. Or was it an egregious waste to have demobilized our armed forces by 1947 after winning World War II two years earlier?
By all means, examine whether our assumptions will hold and whether our plans are appropriate. But to ridicule the idea that one can reduce your armed forces after a war is silly.
Or is the author going to condemn the Obama administration for reducing our military while we still fight in Afghanistan?
