Reply #41: I had originally thought to write that. [View All]

[amandabeech]

However, I think that our current troop levels in Afghanistan, including mercenaries and supply train personnel that would have been military then, is a larger commitment than we had in 1965.

I also think that we have a greater psychological commitment to Afghanistan now than we may have in Vietnam in 1965 because, although many are forgetting, we got in because the organization and its leader that gave us 9/11 were or are there.

Obama does have LBJ's history to look at, and I'm glad that Kerry is around to remind him of it, because I've never thought that Obama's strong suit was mid-20th century American history and most of his White House advisors are like him, too young to have consciously lived it.

It's been hours since I read Kerry's statement, and it's very late, but the current Kerry doesn't sound as convinced as the young Kerry was that the conflict in question was completely wrong-headed in the first place.

Personally, I think that we're better off building our defenses closer to home, and leaving only special forces in Afghanistan--unless we're willing to take on Pakistan, too, because whoever we're after, and I'm no longer sure who that is, has and will continue to scurry into Pakistan just like earlier opponents could scurry into Laos or Cambodia.

We have never won a guerrilla war, and although I love history, military history is not my thing, but I'd sure like to know of a large attacking power winning one.