I gotta give the benefit to the smart prez, at least for the time being. Tight spot. Damn tight spot.

While I think there are good arguments against a troop increase based on geopolitical reality and workable strategies alone, I do not buy the idea that economic hardship and troubles at home are reasons enough for not engaging in offensive warfare.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
President Abraham Lincoln 1862

Word:

national security spending should not be considered sacrosanct and that a nation's leaders can hurt the country just as easily by under-investing at home as by neglecting its defenses. And given that we currently spend more on national security than the rest of the world put together, have several thousand nuclear weapons, face no great power rivals, and don't have any serious enemies nearby, it's kind of hard to argue that we're "neglecting" our defenses.

it's a time to re-read martin, especially the last few paragraphs.

For one of the very few times, Little Jimmie is right: Aghanistan is the historical graveyard of empires. We shouldn't make it ours as well.

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you."
—Abraham Simpson

Sorry, just don't get it. Can't see a reason for over 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Another unending war?

Gordon Brown is set to confirm that Britain is sending an extra 500 troops to Afghanistan after the conditions he placed on the reinforcement were met.

Le Monde said France was not considering sending more combat troops as it estimated that it had enough men in the areas where it was in charge, but could make other efforts.

Gordon Brown is set to confirm that Britain is sending an extra 500 troops to Afghanistan after the conditions he placed on the reinforcement were met.

Le Monde said France was not considering sending more combat troops as it estimated that it had enough men in the areas where it was in charge, but could make other efforts.

One thing Afghanistan has done is that it has proven that NATO's a fraud. It should be disbanded or restructured, because there's not much worse than having a military alliance that won't follow it's own policies. It emboldens the enemies of each and every nation in the alliance.

I think Afghanistan would best be managed and the Taliban restrained by using the strategy we used to defeat the Soviets in their occupation: find the enemy of your enemy, arm them, and let them do the dirty job that needs to be done.

Only this time we should not neglect the victors as we did after the Soviets left.

That's the best option out of very few other options, all lousy, that we have left.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
President Abraham Lincoln 1862

That kind of thinking is exactly WHY we're in Afghanistan today. Usually referred to as "blowback." Deal in an open, honest, and straightforward manner, not sneaky and underhanded.

Yes and no.

We didn't so much as neglect Afghanistan after the Soviets left; we abandoned it.

The struggle in Afghanistan is essentially civil: a struggle between radical fundamentalist Muslims and more (not a great deal) moderate Muslims.

But we still have a stake in it, a big one.

I think a "solution," and I use that word tentatively, may best be found in SE Asia after our involvement there.

The region was considered a basket case, with no hope. Twenty years later people were talking about the Asian Tigers and the success of the region.

It's not perfect, but the region as a whole is more stable and developed than it was thirty years ago.

I think a model for Afghanistan might be found there.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
President Abraham Lincoln 1862

Candidate Obama did some saber rattling on the Afgan war.

The Afgan war was the right war..the Iraq war was
the wrong war.

It was the one major disagreement I had/have with
Obama.And I agree with Congressman Duncan.

Get out.

Slowly we are moving out of Iraq but now we are
esculating the Afgan war.

The President did set a more limited mission..cripple the extremist on the Afgan-Pakistan border & counter-insurgency.

Plus,the President,set a time certain for
when we will begin withdrawling troops.

However,Senator McCain,while supporting the mission,
does not support the time table for withdrawal.

While Senator McCain agrees with bench marks the
Senator believes that the circumstances on the
ground should determain the circumstances of
withdrawl.

Senator McCain makes a good point.If circumstances
on the ground are improved but the mission has not
been accomplished by time certain..has the mission
failed if we withdrawl?

What do we do..if like in Iraq in '06,the circumstances
on the ground have deterated by time certain?

The President is between a rock & hard place both
literally & figuratively.

Figuratively,there is no good place to go.

During the campaign,over & over,the President said
the Afgan war was the right war.

Like Vietnam..which began as Johnson's war..
but in late '69 it became Nixon's war.

The Afgan war is no longer Bush's war but Obama's
war.

The President spoke from Eisenhower Hall.

IMO,the President should have done what Ike
did in Korea.

Truman's war did not become Eisenhower's war
because Ike ended the Korean War months after
becoming President.

Literally,Afghanistan is a rock & a hard place
when it comes to military operations.

A very,very tough place to accomplish anything
but a quagmire.

I agree with Congressman Duncan.

Bring the troops home now.

Gates said before a Senate committee that the DOD
will review the status of the mission in December of 2010.

That review will dictate if the progress of the mission warrent a drawl down of troops in July of 2011.

Since WWII the United States has been in 3 wars.
The Korean,Vietnam,Iraq/Afgan wars.

And none have been declared under Art.8 Sec 11
of the Constitution.Art 8 Sec.11 grants the power
to declare war to the congress.

Therefore,the Korean,Vietnam & Iraq/Afgan wars have
become the President's wars.

In Korea,Truman,Oct.1950,,approved troops moving beyond
the 38th parallell(the border between N.Korea & S.Korea).

President Truman changed his mind but it was too late
& the war dragged on until President Eisenhower crafted
an armitistice in July of 1953.

President Johnson by 1968 had committed 500,000 troops
to Vietnam.In Feb of 1968 the miltary ask for 200,000
more troops.President Johnson committed 30,000.

In June of 1969 President Nixon ordered a draw down
of 25,000 troops.Nixon continued to drawl down troops
but the war dragged on till 1974.

IMO,without the declaration of war..The Korean,Vietnam
& Iraq/Afgan wars have all become..the President's war.

President Eisenhower did not allow Truman's war in Korea
to become his war.Eisenhower ended the Korean war months
after becoming president.

However,President Nixon allowed Johnson's Vietnam war
to become his.Though President Nixon did drawl down
troops the war dragged on the entire span of his presidency.

President Obama,has began the drawl down of troops in Iraq.

However,with the present course of action,the Afgan
war is no longer Bush's war..it is Obama's war.

IMO,when the congress & the president do not follow
the Constitution on the power of the congress to declare
war..the President becomes the sole power in the conduct of
the war.

Therefore,there is no broad support for waging war.

Members of congress..when the war is not going well..
point to the White House..it's the president's war..
not mine.

Not following the power to declare war as required by
the Constitution has led us in the wrong direction in the
conduct of the Korean war,the Vietnam war.

We are repeating that mistake in the Afgan war.

The President should take a declaration of war to
the congress.

In 1952 President Truman was considering a bid for re-election.However bogged down in the Korean War Senator
Kefauver defeated President Truman in the New Hampshire
Democratic primary.President Truman decided not to seek re-election.A Republican was elected president.

In 1968 President Johnson was running for re-election.However bogged down in the Vietnam War & facing defeat by Senator McCarthy in the Wisconsin Democratic primary President Johnson withdrew from the race.A Republican was elected president.

In 1972 still bogged down in Vietnam an anti war Democratic dark horse candidate won the nomination.However Senator McGovern's inept handling of the vice presidential nomination doomed his campaign.President Nixon in what should have been a tough re-election campaign cruised to victory.Watergate not the Vietnam War destroyed President Nixon but many of the problems of Watergate were directly linked Nixon's attempts
to shut down those that opposed his war policies.The Republicans lost badly in the elections of 1974 & 1976.

In 2004 President Bush won a bruising re-election campaign.However,from 2005 thru 2008,we became bogged
down in the Iraq War & the Iraq War destroyed President Bush's presidency.The Republicans lost badly in the elections of '06 & '08.

When the American voter is told by their President over & over again there is light at the end of the tunnel if we just send more troops..the voters have dealt very harshly with those presidents & their political party when undeclared wars drag on & on & on.