Really? Yes – military wise.
The four naval accidents have been made possible by Obama and the Congress. Their idiotic Debt Ceiling battles of the last years cut the budget of the military and the navy had to cut 20% of its ship workforce so it is overstretch and less serviced (and it does not help the investments in super expensive new ships like the littoral).
Also, in Afghanistan, the new strategy probably will not make much difference initially, but goes in the right direction.
The surge is very minor (at the top there were over 150,000 troops). But under President Obama they were there without consideration of the surrounding and declaring to the enemy the strategy.
Talks with Taliban (even if they are not a cohesive force) are needed as most of them are from Afghanistan. In Vietnam, for example, the US could not win as for most Vietnamese the war was not communism versus capitalism, but a liberation against invaders.
With Taliban is similar. Or you apply a Stalin like solution (population replacement) or you need to talk.
Now President Trump will not say what the surge means (very good against an enemy that is able to watch TV). Moreover addresses the Pakistan sanctuary (it is more an unlawful region of Pakistan than a direct Pakistani force).
Also the direct support of India against China and Pakistan is very interesting, Pakistan is already been lost to Russia and China – so India, clearly against China and Pakistan, is a very good choice.
Why this? Well remember my last posts ….now the US foreign policy (at least) is driven by a military triumvirate of real generals, not politicians like in President Obama times.
investorpolitico 