Anyone remember that we were going to get out of Afghanistan?
I sure do. Posted pre-election in various threads in various places and stand by the following.
Unless in response to an attack where short term immediate action is needed (and would require congressional approval to continue) we don't engage militarily unless there is an actual US interest, and the following are true.
1. We can clearly define why we are there.
2. We can clearly define our objectives.
3. Those objectives must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. As such we will know when we have met our objectives.
4. We will have plans in place in case "ground truth" changes and adjustments need to be responded to
5. We will have exit criteria for our departure
6. We will have an exit strategy such that we don't leave the remnants of a bull in a china shop as we did in Iraq nor a vacuum as we did in Libya.
7. Once we commit, we will remain committed to those objectives and be willing to pay the price in blood and money to achieve them. If not, you shouldn't be doing this anyways.
While not dictating to the military how to approach things, many instances can be dealt with quickly with overwhelming force, and when true, that may bring the quickest resolution.
If we only get "stuck in" under those circumstances, we are far less likely to get stuck in, or to get stuck like Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby from "Song of the South" (1950's Disney)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oAPWPsgR9g so remniscent of how we've done military intervention far too often.
And yes, the entire "Song of the South" is full of racial stereotyping you'd expect from the '50s. But this particular event is IMHO well illustrative of US foreign policy as seen most recently in Afghanistan