Reply #104: I object to both on grounds

[TheKentuckian]

that the Executive Order idea makes a mockery of our entire system and adds to the insanely dangerous precedent of the Imperial Presidency. I agree with the spirit of the concept but have grave reservations about the methodology. Lack of perseverance, determination, grit, and long term approach sets us up for a far greater fall than any hamfisted gain. The same system that slows and frustrates the best of ideas allows poison from being quickly shoved down our collective throats.

The Afghan peace conference idea is just sounds good/feels good nonsense with some very questionable nation building tactics of installing yet another government on top of people. This is nothing but a magic wand solution to a big ass and real world problem. We are there now so we must determine what the problems are, what our range of effective solutions are, make it happen hell and high water, and get the fuck out Dodge. We must have concrete objectives and objective water marks to determine achievement. If we cannot do that then it is time to rotate home. We cannot attempt to use our military to achieve ethereal and political objectives. If there are targets to be hit or areas to secure we can accomplish that but we cannot give democracy at the end of gun barrels or change the trajectory of thousands of years of social development with a carefully targeted load of munitions.

We are there supposedly for our own security interests and those must be identified with a prescription and description of how force will be effective in meeting those goals. If it is determined that there is no reasonable hope of achieving the objectives or that achieving the objectives will not affect then we have to come home and chalk it however it must be chalked. By that same token if there are achievable objectives that will reduce or destroy a credible threat then we cannot shy away from the duty to protect our country.