"...related to the defeat of the Taliban (no great accomplishment by anyone's standards),"
Is that what you meant to say? I seem to recall a certain Russian army that didn't fare as well after years of struggle. I remember mention of Viet Nam when we were contemplating going in there.
I think the swift, decisive trouncing is what cemented the popularity. Personally, I didn't care if Bush, Alan Keyes or John McCain got in office. I'm MUCH more concerned with the way issues are addressed, than who is behind the pen.
Please be serious. The Taliban presided over a country that was ravaged from years and years of war, had no money and no real military to speak of. To compare what the Soviets were up against and what the Americans were up against is like comparing apples and oranges. The Soviets basically fought the U.S. through the Afghans (the original resistance forces back in the 80's were all U.S. supported both with money and weapons). The U.S. post 9-11 on the other hand, pummelled the Taliban with the support of most nations, and with the military support of the Northern Alliance. There was no major super power bankrolling the Taliban in their fight against the U.S.. The only similarity between those two wars was the terrain - and even that was different because the U.S. was smart enough to finish up before the snow hit.
The real test will be how the U.S. fights a diffuse terrorist network around the world (this is of course Bush's original objective), not how it dismantled some third-rate, third-world, thug dictators. Anyhow - thats just my opinion.
N
Is that what you meant to say? I seem to recall a certain Russian army that didn't fare as well after years of struggle. I remember mention of Viet Nam when we were contemplating going in there.
I think the swift, decisive trouncing is what cemented the popularity. Personally, I didn't care if Bush, Alan Keyes or John McCain got in office. I'm MUCH more concerned with the way issues are addressed, than who is behind the pen.
Please be serious. The Taliban presided over a country that was ravaged from years and years of war, had no money and no real military to speak of. To compare what the Soviets were up against and what the Americans were up against is like comparing apples and oranges. The Soviets basically fought the U.S. through the Afghans (the original resistance forces back in the 80's were all U.S. supported both with money and weapons). The U.S. post 9-11 on the other hand, pummelled the Taliban with the support of most nations, and with the military support of the Northern Alliance. There was no major super power bankrolling the Taliban in their fight against the U.S.. The only similarity between those two wars was the terrain - and even that was different because the U.S. was smart enough to finish up before the snow hit.
The real test will be how the U.S. fights a diffuse terrorist network around the world (this is of course Bush's original objective), not how it dismantled some third-rate, third-world, thug dictators. Anyhow - thats just my opinion.
N
Facebook
Twitter