LateToThisParty

Isn't this the same logic behind the Obama surge and also to the scale-up of Vietnam? More boots on the ground and bombs in the air didn't help in Vietnam. Did the Obama surge work? (work as in it fulfilled short-term military and long-term political objectives)

Isn't 'North Vietnam' what the Taliban had in Pakistan?

I'm just wary of the constant push for more military to solve counter-insurgency problems.. I find it hard to grasp that 'if we just had x thousand more troops or x tons more bombs/aid, then that would have done it!' After all, the war was the most expensive in history.

Doesn't seem like committing what you deem would have been sufficient would have been politically possible (under any administration/party in charge). Separating military goals from political realties is partially what got us in trouble in the first place.

I don't get how the logic can hold that the surge was a failure but more troops would of solved things. I understand there are different tactical considerations over the decades-long war but from a strategic perspective, it doesn't seem to align.

Are you saying that the biggest takeaway is to have more troops at the beginning of the invasion?

Good thoughts - thanks for your 5 cents.