Expand the Afghan War to End it???

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we should declare victory and leave Afghanistan. After ten long years, too many dead and oceans of money wasted, some still stubbornly say American should accelerate the war. This from ex-CIA official, Bruce Riedel:

It is fantasy to think we can target these terrorist networks in Pakistan without a base nearby in Afghanistan. The Arabian Sea is too far away. Cruise missiles don't work. We need Afghanistan for both drone operations and commando raids. Of course, Pakistani duplicity means we can't rely on them to disrupt al Qaeda. As the intelligence community examines bin Laden's laptop and other gear, the extent of that duplicity will become clearer. Well-informed Pakistani press accounts hint it will point very high into the army command. So, Bin Laden's demise is a victory, but the end of this conflict is not yet in sight. It is tempting to declare mission accomplished and run for the exit, but we know from bitter experience that pretending victory is at hand is a terrible delusion.

TPJ: The hawks never stop dreaming and planning war, do they? It's been ten years now, too many dead, trillions spent and there's no end in sight??? This "expert" seems to be suggesting an endless war and occupation of Afghanistan. He may as well have said we need to make it the next U.S. state!! Of course al-Qaeda will re-group but so do cockroaches. It doesn't mean we need a standing army of hundreds of thousands that requires buckets of money!! Other experts state that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been whittled down to only a small group of hardcore fighters. In addition, much of al-Qaeda has splintered throughout the world, so unless we plan on declaring war on the countries who have these pockets then we should be leery of continuing this fight in Afghanistan.

As for Pakistan, is he suggesting we go to war with them, too? It sounds like it. If (according to his logic) we must stay in Afghanistan to fight the enablers of al-Qaeda in Pakistan then he's essentially saying we should be fighting a war with Pakistan, too!! If he's not suggesting we declare war on Pakistan then how are we supposed to stem the tide of the supposed masses of al-Qaeda streaming through Pakistan into Afghanistan? That makes no sense. I think it's better to withdrawal the vast majority of U.S. forces but keep a few bases just for drone attacks on specific, top leaders within al-Qaeda. We don't need to keep a ground force of hundreds of thousands anymore.

What's the point of killing these supposed hordes of al-Qaeda streaming through from Pakistan, if Pakistan is harboring them in the first place??? Thus, why, we should just declare victory and go home (except for some special forces and drones) because unless we are willing to declare war on Pakistan (which is stupid to even consider) then it's pointless to stay. Just fighting them in Afghanistan isn't going to end this so-called "resurgence" and Pakistan won't allow any more commando raids without striking back. The last thing we want is a war with the nuclear armed Pakistan. I also think we should use some of the money that we would have spent on ground forces to beef up first responders here at home.

They say the best offense is a good defense. I trust our CIA, FBI, police and other intelligence agencies to stop attacks here; they've had a good track record, so far. Besides, we'll never stop every, single, attack. To think otherwise is a denial of the imperfection of this world. If we can reduce them to small attacks on a very, very rare occasion then I think that's the best we can hope for without occupying the world.

---End of Transmission---