There was an error in this gadget

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

US Military Checkmated in the Mid-East?

If you're not depressed enough about our options in the Mid-East, Richard Fernandez can hook you up:

But those catastrophes is now distinctly within the realm of possibility and palpably nearer. The bulk of America’s forces are in landlocked Afghanistan, dispatched by a genius policy that sought to ‘end the war where it began’. Those forces have scant means of resupply through Pakistan, which has finally manifested its open hatred for the United States. Nor can American forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan except through Russian controlled territory — the same Russia which Hillary Clinton must now face off against in Syria.
The administration has checkmated in such an epic manner as to beggar the imagination. Ordinary stupidity could hardly have effected such a comprehensive disaster. Mere imbecility would have been insufficient to the task. Only an arrogance that mistook ignorance and incompetence for “smart diplomacy” could have achieved such a train wreck.
I hadn't thought about things that way, and it's stunning to think about.  Read the whole thing here.

1 comment:

Glenn Knight said...

I read Fernandez's piece, and I found it unconvincing. For one thing, he asserts that the "bulk" of U.S. forces are in landlocked Afghanistan. The United States has over one million military members (of whom, admittedly, many are uniformed clerks), and about 100,000 people in Afghanistan. That's a good-sized chunk of our combat forces, but not, I would say, the "bulk." This is an old, old trick, using some word which is actually just a synonym for "some," but which sounds more impressive. It's true that Afghanistan is landlocked, but this could be less dire than Fernandez thinks because of a new thing we have called "airplanes." And so on. The situation in the Middle East is not "catastrophic," at the moment, although there is a whole lot of shakin' goin' on.