Well, the US military has doctrine that lays out guidelines for how many
soldiers do you need to stabilize a threatened country involved in a civil
war insurgency. And those guidelines tell you how many troops you need per
civilians in the country involved to provide them with the security they need
to defend themselves against insurgents and terrorists. If you apply that
standard rule of thumb to a place like either Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq you
end up with numbers well north of 200,000 trained, motivated security
providers which in most circumstances basically means Americans. And the whole
problem here is that these situations all matter to Americans but not that
much. I mean, nobody in the American political system at the moment
believes that it's commensurate with the scale of the U.S. stake in a place like
Afghanistan or Syria to send the hundreds of thousands of soldiers the
current U.S. military doctrine says you would need if you were actually going to
stabilize these places by force of arms without some sort of painful negotiated
settlement that gives up significant parts of the stake to an actor that we
dislike as much as, say, the Taliban.
For more infomation >> U S Navy LCAC's Deliver Equipment Ashore During Trident Juncture 2018 - Duration: 5:44. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét