Now perhaps you've read this blog before and have pieced together that Sean and I aren't exactly bullish on the prospects for success on the mission nor do we think the war is a worthwhile use of money. It was probably all the times that we said we aren't bullish on the prospects for success on the mission nor do we think the war is a worthwhile use of money. That probably tipped you off. That was before we knew we had such tactical superiority.
The U.S. has committed nearly 100,000 troops to the mission in Afghanistan. ABC This Week host Jake Tapper asked CIA Director Leon Panetta how big is the al Qaeda threat that the soldiers are combating:Hey hey, anywhere from a 2000:1 to a 1000:1 advantage. I like those odds. Makes you wonder why this war makes the Hundred Years War look like a couple of short jaunts in France.
TAPPER: How many Al Qaeda, do you think, are in Afghanistan?
PANETTA: I think the estimate on the number of Al Qaeda is actually relatively small. I think at most, we’re looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It’s in that vicinity. There’s no question that the main location of Al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Of course you may be thinking "Why must we have a 1000:1 troop advantage and spend nearly a billion per Al Qaeda per year?" Because we don't want to make the same mistake that every other country that went to war in the Graveyard of Empires made. I haven't researched this one bit, but I'm betting all those countries didn't have a staggeringly overwhelming troop, technology, and money advantage.
So I'm sure we'll be able to get this all under control within another several years... or decades. 50 is a big number.... and it might even be 100! What's your fucking obsession with finding out the length, tactics, and value of endless costly wars? The President doesn't have a crystal ball. Look, it's simple: as soon as we kill everyone that wants us to leave, then we can leave. Not one second before.