Judah Grunstein, here
"...There are obvious strategic costs to Afghanistan remaining a vector of instability. But if the cost of a stable Afghanistan is an unstable or Talibanized Pakistan, an unstable Afghanistan might be the lesser of two evils. There's also something to be said for the idea of "managed instability" in Afghanistan, which would allow a safety valve for pressure in Pakistan, while drawing the actual threat to American interests -- al-Qaida -- back into a country where we have some liberty of action..."
"....A stable Afghanistan is neither necessary to US security nor obviously possible at reasonable cost, as I have periodically written. It is not evident that Al Qaeda types would again find haven in Afghanistan should we go. But assuming that they would, there remains an alternative to trying to overcome Afghanistan’s anarchic history. We could attack only the remaining jihadists, their allies, and insurgents who will not settle for local power. That would require only a small U.S. ground presence, airstrikes and local allies..."
No comments:
Post a Comment