Obama administration officials hoped the Afghan election would demonstrate that eight years after the American invasion, the country was stable enough to justify an expanded commitment of money and troops from an increasingly skeptical American public.isn't that completely backwards? isn't afghan stability a reason to consider withdrawal, or at least non-escalation? i mean, if the country is stable, why does it need a ramped up commitment of foreign troops?
for years the lack of stability was cited by the u.s. as the reason for staying. now, the administration hopes that increased stability can be cited as a reason for staying. and so the administration is afraid that the elections may produce less stability.
so maybe the obama administration is adopting a new framework. it's a new administration, they're allowed to do that. but given their new framework of more stability = staying, if afghanistan faces less stability, that must mean leaving, right?
no, of course not. if the country is more stable, we need to stay. (why stop something that's working?) and if the country is less stable, we need to stay. (instability just shows how badly foreign forces are needed to stabilize the place) is there any plausible state of affairs that will lead to the conclusion that it's time to leave? isn't this what no exit strategy look like?
