Tuesday, August 21, 2018

So There is a Substitute for Victory?

I'm not happy we will reach this milestone in the Afghanistan fight (tip to Instapundit, because I'd never look at the Ron Paul Institute without a reason, because I think he is a raving lunatic--heck, I didn't know there was such a thing as the RPI any more than I'd think there might be a Bozo the Clown Institute):

Sometime late next year, possibly as early as September, news crews will gather in Afghanistan for a unique event: To interview an American serviceman or woman who was not born when the war they are fighting began.

But what is the alternative to continuing this long war? Letting Afghanistan fall to jihadis to again be a source of terrorism that might kill even more than they managed on September 11, 2001?

It is not our fault we face enemies with an ideology of hatred and murderous intent that is so strong that it motivates them to keep on fighting for so long so they can kill us at home.

And remember, however imperfect they are, we do have allies who do the vast majority of the fighting against the jihadis without the need for 100,000 American troops in direct combat.

The price of sustaining our allies is far less than the cost of letting jihadis win and refighting the war (see Iraq).

And no, hiring mercenaries is no way to get our troops out. Mercenaries have a role in support of the American military but they should never ever be considered a replacement.

My thoughts on privatized warfare (and for only 99 cents).