= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
username2 comments on Open Thread, January 11-17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (180)
That only postpones the problem for a few years, unless you establish a permanent military presence.
The US can keep 100,000+ soldiers on the ground for 7 years, have all of its top military brass focus on that conflict, fight cleverly and aggressively against the opposition, lead the country through the process of drafting a constitution and holding elections, train the new military and police forces, spend tens of billions of dollars helping to build the country's infrastructure (in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending), gradually remove its troops in an orderly fashion as negotiated with the country's new government, and still have everything go horribly within a couple years of leaving.
I agree with your implied point that putting boots on the ground for a few years (and then removing them) is less likely to lead to horrible outcomes if it's done in a stable region, where law-and-order is well-established in the neighboring countries and there are unlikely to be any major disruptive events in the region during the military engagement or the decade after it has ended.
I am unsure which part of this graph you are referring to, but if the policy of temporarily sending troops into a country is fragile enough to risk disaster if that sort of detail isn't handled properly then that is not a good sign.