I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this here. It's been reported by numerous sources that President Obama has made his decision regarding Afghanistan and will announce next Tuesday that somewhere around 34,000 additional troops will be deployed there.
Any comments? Will those of you who have made a point of attacking the President's every move give him credit for this? Or will you disagree, just because HE is doing it, even if you've been calling for the same thing for months? Also, are you worried about who's going to pay for it or where are we even going to get all these troops since we're already stretched much too thin?
Annie
[question posted by anniepa]responses and comments:
I think you have not heard much on it because everyone is holding their breath to see if the "war tax" talk to going to happen. Some members of congress are asking for one to pay for the war. It is scaring the heck out of alot of people. And I don't blame them. It seems a new tax is brought up every other day. Now as the Obama's decision....I say if the generals are saying they need the extra troops....give it to them. They are the ones on the ground. They know what is going on. What the trooops need and how to win. Obama does not have military experience so he needs to rely on his military advicers and the generals in charge who do have the training, knowledge and experience to get the job done. The last thing I want is for our men and women already there to not get the support and supplies they need to do the job. That costs more lives. [lilwonders456]
The continued deficit spending is continuing to erode the value of the dollar. It is insanity and unsustainable to keep going deeper in debt. Freedom is not promoted by brute force causing the people you are supposedly helping develop a hatred of you. I am a Vietnam Veteran and I came to realize that my war was not about the freedom of the Vietnamese. It was about growing the USA Empire that mostly benefits the elite, wealthy men of European descent. We maintained 500,000 of us in-country for over a decade and never "won." Yet our military "leaders" did not want to give up... The soldier boys need to bloody our army and they only earn medals to pin on their puffed up chests when we have wars... Their advise is tainted at best. Tactically and historically the Brits and the Russians never really conquered Afghanistan. The Russians could not do it with 1.6 million troops. And do not underestimate the Russians militarily. They were the true Second Front that defeated the Nazis by suffering huge casualties. Between Irag and Afghanistan is Iran. Militarily Iran has been positioned for a two-front war. The Middle East occupation is about oil and oil is about power, economically and militarily. WWII was settled in part by cutting supply of oil to Germany and Japan. I think nobody can win WWIII, Obama has been maneuvered to continue the USA in the Age of Reagan, and we, the American people, are taking huge risks in "trusting" the ruling bullies who use us... [SteveSlaton]
Hi Annie, We can not accept him to send the troops to the Afghanistan because already the force was facing lots more problems and have suffered mentally as well as physically. So the President would think about the life of the Armed force and would helps them to get the life for them. They are already many more troops in Afghanistan and they are suffering and also have been facing many more problems including the death, so the President would think well before to take any action to send the troops to the Afghanistan. According to the report the American would have spent lots of money on the troops to helps to other country for nothing. Have a good day. [Binthu]
Unfortunately it is the the general (not the president) who wants additional troops there...the general actually wanted more, but they settled for 34,000. So Obama is taking the advice of experienced men, and they know what to do to get the job done. The bottom line is...if we have to go over there, we should be bringing in what we need to get the job done fast, and not linger...if the president wouldn't allow additional men, this war would be going on forever. Either settle the war, or bring them on home. I think he is doing the right thing. [Sweetchariot]
I heard about that issue in your country. But i don't think sending more troops is enough to stabilize the rouge country of Afghanistan. I don't see any win win solution for Afghanistan unless they are concentrate on local officials that will muddle the situation there because instead of providing good services to their constituent they corrupt the money that will help the people their to start a new living. Since, people there will not have enough foods and education Taliban forces will increasingly and violently because they provide money to the citizens that have no idea on where to find a living... US military should not be there for combatant but for providing aids to those needy and avoid killing more innocent civilian for not increasing their enemy... [aerous]
I have always tried to be supportive of President Obama, anniepa, but I must admit that this move puts the lie to his promise to end the war during his campaign. I fear that these wars we are presently involved in will be never-ending, with much loss of human life and finances. That is how I honestly feel about it. [worldwise1]
You're right, worldwise1, there are generals who aren't in agreement about sending that many additional troops. Annie [anniepa]
we have got enough men and women over there. Im sure who ever is over there can handle the job just fine. no need to waste more money and risk the lives of 34,000 more troops. [hanowski32]
Obama can't be the blamed for this one...it was the general who advised Obama of needing more men. The general actuall wanted more. The decision to send more men is to get the job done right this time, so they can come home. Obama took the advice of experienced men, something that Bush never did. [Sweetchariot]
quote..."his decision regarding Afghanistan and will announce next Tuesday . Don't jump the gun, don't count your chickens before they're hatched, etc., etc. I'll wait! [whiteheather39]
I have mixed emotions about deploying a lot more troops over there. This isn't a mop-up action though and until those governments over there in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan take control and commit themselves to eliminating the terrorist and war mongers, I guess we'll have to be there in force. It only took a few years for Bush and Cheney to make a mess over there and it's going to take a lot more years to clean it up. The hardliners and righties should be reminded that they didn't worry how much the War over there was costing in lives, wounded and dollars when they were in office. Now let's see how many jump up and complained about the cost now. [iriscot]
I also have mixed emotions about it. I know Afghanistan got put on the back burner so we could fight the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq. Now suddenly the D1ck is accusing the current President of "dithering" because he's taking his time making his decision when his crew had 8 years and didn't get the job done. Annie [anniepa]
obama said during his face off with john mccain last fall he could run the war better then it was being run by president bush going on to say he will go to bin laden cave himself if he had to, i can only wish,last month in afghanistan 54 solders was killed it has been the most deadly month in 8 year's under obama's watch,i don't think obama has committed to sending more troops unless i missed it,but i think it has been some 60 day's ago that the white house red phone rang,the generals has been asking for more troops so it is long over due obama take some dam responsibility. [kennyrose]
Do you think something like this is a decision to be taken lightly and to be made without a great deal of thought and weighing all the options? Especially with all the controversy and uncertainty surrounding the Afghan elections and the fact that there were disagreements among the "experts" about what should be done? No matter's who's in charge of making these decisions I don't ever think it would be wise to commit to thousands more of our young men and women without having a clear plan and an exit strategy. We've already had troops over there without the proper Equipment such as armor for their vehicles. Annie [anniepa]
As I understand it, this info is a "leak" that the White House is angry about and there's no confirmation of it. I don't know if this is what Obama will announce next week or not. I do know he has said that we might not like what he's going to tell us but once we all know what his reasoning is, we'll all get on board. Of course, he keeps telling us that about health care reform - you only think you don't like this plan, just wait, you're gonna love it! I can't guess if this is accurate info or not. I am not a expert in the administration or fighting of wars and I suspect Obama isn't either. That's why I think he should do something in line with the advice given him by those who are experts, the ones he appointed advise him - like McChrystal. I think the exasperation with his decision-making regarding Afghanistan has been the time elapsed, as you said, it has been months. [Rollo1]
Hiya Annie, is it just me or do you think "terrorist" whenever you hear the name "Obama"?.... sounds like " Oh! bomb her!" to me! I'm not a political animal but I have a few good friends who have been there, and done that and come home, (thank me stripey sox) a couple are still on tour. Iraq, Afghanistan etc One of the most shocking stories they told me was taking the bus to work at the hospital, everyone who had been issued with a bullet proof vest had to sit by the window seats on the bus, because everyone else in the bus didnt have one! True! Unbelievable but true! I ask you, how much does a bullet proof vest cost? If it could save a life is that cost not worth it? Simples! Now if the government can justify spending billions of pounds on creating new weapons of destruction, and campaigns to destroy everyone elses weapons of destruction (which they sold them in the first place), surely they should spend a couple of million on equiping the men and women who go out there to do the job they have courageously joined up to do. The Politicians dont have to face these people up front, they dont have PR's to say "the President wont talk to you cos your face has been blown off and you dont look presentable". Come on! Is it hard to do? They can bail out a couple trillion to save the banks but for our people? Oh no! our troops are not as worthy as those fat cat bankers who have now got their jobs back with bonuses!. Its not just the soldiers that turn up at the hospital you know, its the injured locals as well, a bomb doesnt descriminate - men, women and children get hurt. Everyone within range gets hurt, whether they wear a uniform or not. Since when did a "politician" EVER have to answer a straight question to Joe Bloggs on the street? if it happened I think it would go something like this: Joe Bloggs:"tell me Mr Politician why are our troops dying like flies out there because you wont pay for basic necessities like bullet proof vests?" Politician: "Well Joe its because we have other priorities like saving the economy, and your guys out there are volunteers they arnt earning this country loads of dosh so they will have to get on with what we've told them to do! Goodbye mere mortal!" To be in that position you have to have sold your soul to the devil, because no normal person would think it was acceptable to send your troops out there without the stuff they need to do the basics! No fancy stuff, just the basics! Bullet proof vests, tanks that work, guns that work etc.... There are always trajedies in war becuase it is not a pleasant business, but this situation reminds me of World War 1 when the troops were told to go over the trenches and WALK into battle. Have they learnt nothing? Those people out there are all heroes, every one of them. They are fighting for politicians not for a cause. I truly hope as many of them as possible come home this Christmas. My thoughts are with the families at home, keep strong and pray (I'm not religious so I pray to stripey sox) that they keep safe and come home soon. Wont say any more because this is an issue that makes my blood boil. Thinking of my friends over there and their families here. big hugs ducatirose [ducatirose]
"Hiya Annie, is it just me or do you think "terrorist" whenever you hear the name "Obama"? Actually, no, I don't. I'm unsure if they've gotten the bullet proof vests and armor for their vehicles yet but they've been asking for it for several years, long before obama was even running for President. I know then Senator and current Vice President Biden was one of the most vocal about this outrage. Annie [anniepa]
I have to agree with Lil...the military has been asking for more troops and that's exactly what we need to do, send more in, unless we want another Vietnam on our hands. There are many factors involved when it comes to Afghanistan. The future of the country...it's people have to be taken into consideration. We can't simply pull out and leave those who have supported the allies to be slaughtered and we can't win with the current troop numbers. I also heard that other allied troops will be joining ours. [spalladino]
I just wish I knew what it will mean or how we'll know if we "win", you know what I mean? I supported the war in Afghanistan from the start and was frustrated with how it got shoved onto the back burner for all these years. I just don't know where we're gong to get all these troops from at this point. However, I'm not an expert on the military by any means so I've got to trust in those who are to do the right thing. The LAST thing we need is another Vietnam! Annie [anniepa]
Personally I wish he would just pull all troops out of everywhere and have them here where they belong so they can actually defend the country instead of offending other countries. In a lesser sense, I would be for this as long as he pulls the troops from Iraq, where they shouldn't have been to begin with. Anybody who still believes we should be in Iraq like we are needs their head examined. [jbl1975]
"Anybody who still believes we should be in Iraq like we are needs their head examined." Super-non-Limbaugh-dittos!! Annie [anniepa]
Although I don't live in the US, I have always adopted a Democratic philosophy. I can't stand the Republicans. Therefore, as you can imagine I have adored Obama, much like the whole word, and as such is heavily biased. But, people of a right wing conservative persuasion must admit that, Obama's logic is quite exemplary. Firstly, he acknowledges that, being in Iraq or going into Iraq was a mistake and that 911 was as a result of the activities carried out by the insurgents in Afghanistan. So, his decision to send extra troops to Afghanistan and to finish the job that was started, not focused on for the past few years, is again a great example of his logic. We obviously can't just leave Iraq because of Bush's stupidity, so we must stay in there until the people of Iraq unite and resolve the problems caused by Bush. Lets just hope these extra troops can also resolve the war in Afghanistan. [yourlankanfriend]
OMG I am sick of all the presidents that had come and go, first it all shouldn't we focus on what is going on in our country instead of sticking our noses where they don't belong, who cares what is going on in other countries. We have enough problems and enemies as it is, we don't need more. [Gabby21]
Since afhganistan was a country that chose to stick more than just it's nose in our business, this was a nessesary and justified war. [xfahctor]
I haven't been on mylot for a few days, been busy spending time with my lady and doin the holiday thing, so I have not yet had a chance to comment. Hard to say yet what he is planning on doing as he has not yet made an official announcement. I do know he has been asked, almost begged for more troops. I say if this is what his guys on the ground have said they need they should have gotten them already. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I am not one to sit and armchair quarterback a war, there are people in charge and on the ground who know what their doing, we have some of the best military minds onthe planet and given the chance and the right things and personal to do the job, they can do it. We allowed Afghanistan to go by the way side for too long, Bush neglected it, and up to now, Obama has taken a half hearted stance. So, again, lets see what he intends to do and if he does in fact honor the many requests he has recieved. If he is willing to do what needs to be done, then he has my full 100% support in this effort. [xfahctor]
Hi, Anniepa, the minions of the attack machine are gathering their forces to see how they can spin this one to a negative. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Keep in mind that the contrived and malicious grass roots reform movement cannot ever say anything positive about this administration. They might be taken out and shot at sunrise. wub I think all of us are afraid, as well we should be. At the same time, we must listen and look at everything that is going on over there and around the world, as well as at home. Either we are committed or we are not. We cannot put our troops in a war and not give them the resources to win it. Will it be another Viet Nam? God, I hope not. Only time will tell. This is one of those situations where President Obama did not start this fight, but he sure as h_ll has to do everything in his power to end it and effectively. There may come a time when we walk away, but now is not the time. As for who will pay, where will we get the money; those are all questions that need to be answered. But to paraphrase a line from Saturday Night Live, "We're smart enough, we're good enough, and doggone it people like us again." [StarBright]
If you want to give Taliban a chance to rise again then don't send more troops. [VANILLAREY]
They already HAVE risen again, several years ago. Annie [anniepa]
i feel that the decision is not good on the military point of view but taking the account of the afghanistan it is essential to send the troop keeping in mind the atmosphere that is being existing in that country...and who know this may be an another political move to pressurize pakistan for stop feeding the terrorism [mpkool]
Offensive War is NOT the war to end war. I did a long winded comment of response #1. [SteveSlaton]
I don't think we can afford this. We have a huge debt and plenty of issues in our own country to deal with. Also, the war is unconstitutional because we never declared war like the Constitution says. Our empire is overstretched and we are running out of money. These same issues are what brought all other empires down, including the Roman empire. [K46620]
Honestly, at this point, I'm done with the military occupation in the middle east. I stayed on the fence about it for years. War is an economic and emotional drain for the entire country, and sometimes I just feel like we should pull out and let them play the game by themselves. I disagree because I don't like the war - just as I did when it started. [Latrivia]
...Hi annie, Happy turkey day to you and yours. Hope you are doing well. This is my question, where are they going to find that many troops? Evidently they are going to move them from Korea or Germany, because I don't think there are that many troops ready to go to Afghanistan, that's been the question all along. The President had nine meetings with his security council before coming to a decision. He wants to end the whole thing at some point in time by turning over the security of the country to the Afghans, but how long that will take who knows? The drug corruption within the Karzai government is a major problem as well. Funding will probably be through more borrowing, putting us deeper in debt. How this all turns out is anyone's guess, Pakistan is getting worse and the nukes are there, war is raging there. Are we going to have to dispatch more troops to handle that as well. I feel so sorry for the military and their families. Take care. [artistry]
To address your last sentence first, I also feel so very bad for the military members and their families! There are some of our troops who have already been on four or five tours of duty. I don't think this has ever happened before in hisotory, especially in such a short period of time. I heard someone say a few days ago that we literally don't have the troops to send. I mean, if I remember correctly he said if we were to send 40,000 that would leave under 10,000 active Army troops left for whatever else might come up. As I said, most of them have already been deployed multiple times. All I can say it I'd never want to be the one to have to make a decision on this! Annie [anniepa]
That came to me as a shock as well, but somehow it seems as if he is still following the policies of the previous govenment. I thought he will be one who after Iraq will be calling back the troops from Afghanistan as well. But I think now it will take more time then ususal and of course American have to suffer [eddify]
Annie, You know how I feel about Obama and this move, even if it was not by him, I do not agree with. I see more families that are going to have Dover visits because of this choice. Honestly it has nothing to do with him, it has to do with the move of the troops and where they are coming from. Have we not lost enough of our Soldiers to this needless war? Do we really need to send more, especially around the holidays, to come home in boxes covered with a flag. I would be ripping if it were McCain as well. Ainge May the soldiers be kept safe and come home to their families in this journey with lightweight travel luggage. [Aingealicia]
Annie, I always learn so much from your discussions, thank you for teaching me more. I will say on a personal note, I am feeling like we are watching Vietnam II. These soldiers are my friends, their younger brothers and sisters, and some of us children. My son is 18 next year so he will be up if there is a draft. After the choice of sending them over there, hurts us as a nation in my opinion. So many are against this move. However, in defence of the military and Obama, they should know what they are doing. There has to be a reason. At least give them some of the benifit of the doubt that there is a reason for it. My gut says there is no reason to be there. Ainge [Aingealicia]
I'm more concerned with the stratagem being employed. Any good tactician knows that you must overwhelm your enemy, to have the quickest, least deadly battle. So yes, sending more troops is good, but is it enough? McChrystal, the International Security Assistance Force General, and General of all US Forces in Afghanistan, says we need at least 40K more troops and a shift in our combat plan. I happen to be the type that when the General who's there and in the trenches, says we need X number of troops and a new plan, I assume we really need X number of troops and a new plan. So why a new plan? Well because right now we have 'rules of engagement'. We have a situation where our people can't go where they need to go, and do what they need to do. In short, we have a re-enactment of Vietnam on our hands. This is why some people are calling him Lyndon B Obama. Consider... during the Vietnam war, we had rules of engagement. A system were you could bomb targets, but then you were not allowed to bomb again. So they simply rebuilt bunkers and other military assets. We couldn't go into Cambodia, so enemies would attack, kill a bunch of our people, and retreat to Cambodia where they regrouped for another attack. We have the exact same thing happening here. We find a hide out and bomb it, but then we can't bomb again. They cross over from Pakistan and kill a bunch of people, then retreat back to Pakistan where they regroup and for another attack. So, is Obama being an LBJ, and re-enacting the Vietnam war? I don't know. I've said for quite a while now, we need to either pull out completely, and call it a loss, or go in completely and wipe them out. You can't go half cocked. All or nothing. Obama needs to either call the whole thing off, or go all out. Send as much troops as they need, and take the shackles off our troops, and let them mop the floor with the Taliban. This is a good first step in that direction. We'll have to see how the rest of it goes. Now there is one thing I am pissed off at Obama for. Because of all his reckless spending, all the crap programs to "stimulate the economy" which have never worked in the past, and haven't helped now, we don't have the money for the troops we need. So now Obama is planning a special tax to pay for military spending. Oh well great... absolutely wonderful. Just what we need in a recession is a new tax! There's a plan... when consumer spending is down, take more money from consumers! Brilliant! Here's a thought... cut spending on those crap programs like Amtrak, and use that for the military. [andy77e]
Obama has to raise taxes, there's no way around it. Nancy Pelosi is his party. Funny that when democrats did things during Bush's presidency, you blamed Bush for their actions. Now, you have a member of Obama's own party, and you are excusing him for it. You think that raising taxes isn't going to effect the lower class? Why am I surprised. Liberals have no concept of what an economy is. Hello Annie... we're all connected hon. If the owner of my company pays more in taxes, that just means he'll raise his pay. That's what being owner is all about. If he raises his pay, that means he'll have to pay everyone else less. I'll be screwed because you thought taxing rich people was a good idea. Do you remember the Yacht tax? Look it up. Everyone thought only rich people buy Yachts, so we can put a luxury tax on them. What happened was rich people stopped buying yachts, or they purchased yachts from other countries. Who suffered? The lower class workers in the Yacht industry. They all lost their jobs, and were unemployed. They were screwed because liberals thought taxing the rich was a good idea. When you tax the rich, you shoot yourself in the foot. Oh and btw, about that War Tax... maybe you haven't been paying attention... The war tax, is a surtax. Meaning it's exempt from IRS exemptions. It will affect people making as little as $22,000 a year. You think the rich are going to pay for this? No madam, they are not. We are going to pay it. We are going to pay higher taxes during a government caused recession, because our leaders have blown $10 Trillion dollars, and don't have the money to pay for the things that matter. [andy77e]