JebBoosh

How would that approach work given that the US is absolutely atrocious at identifying who real "enemies" are, and we end up murdering (and/or capturing and torturing) thousands of civilians in order to "save people"?

How do you prevent more "enemies" from popping up, after you've just killed their friends/family/etc?

How would more troops have possibly been better? How can you justify the loss of afghani civilian life that more troops would have inevitably caused?

More US military forces would inevitably mean more bloodshed. I don't see how this would have possibly been a good thing.

Off topic but what do you think about the US's approach/response to Russia's apparent mobilization to invade Ukraine? Do you think it will work?

What exactly is it about animals that makes them different enough that we can justify performing experiments on them, but similar enough that animal research on pain/suffering is relevant enough for us to use?

I struggle with this because it's pretty much impossible to avoid animal research/testing or avoid benefitting/supporting it, but it seems unjustifiable to me to subject animals (that are neurologically very similar to us) to treatments that we might consider unethical on humans.

"a larger death machine doesn't necessarily mean more death"

The purpose of the US military is not to befriend the locals. You don't see the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders murdering "terrorists".