Support for Afghanistan War Only 39% According to New Poll

[JeffreyS]

I want to succeed in Afghanistan. I am afraid we have already failed by spreading ourselves thin before finishing the job. I will still support the effort if we have a reasonable plan for achieving our strategic and humanitarian goals. Do not choose to war unless you can decisively win. Can we? If we can't then no matter how noble your goals it is not moral to fight. If we can do it already it has been too long.

[heights unknown]

I want us to "bring the boys and gals" back home.  Too many social and financial issues of a potentially grave nature happening here at home for us to still be expending much needed money, funds, capital, etc. on a singular global war effort.

In the meantime, from a retired Sailor, must support the guys and gals who are stationed and still fighting overseas and around the globe!

Heights Unknown

[heights unknown]

Do you support the Afghanistan war?

Yes & No Yes back when we first went in to KILL the Taliban that had taken over Afghanistan. And No not now, once more we don't seem to know how to Win A War! We should give Afghanistan Two more Years then pull out everyone. We will never win here, there is no way we can kill or try to change the minds of the Taliban. These people remind me of a True Baptist who tell me I'm going to (Hell) if I don't believe what a True Baptist believes  

Glad I'm not a Baptist; but I agree with you whole heartedly "JaxBorn."

In addition, there's too many pressing issues here at home, in addition to the war effort that are draining us financially and economically where we can no longer afford to "chase the Taliban and/or Terrorists;" and, the rest of the world are no longer supporting or going along with us in this fruitless effort.

Heights Unknown

[Dog Walker]

What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan?  If we don't have a clear idea of that then we can never get out.  Maybe we already have won as much as is possible in such a place.

[buckethead]

Do you support the Afghanistan war?

Yes & No Yes back when we first went in to KILL the Taliban that had taken over Afghanistan. And No not now, once more we don't seem to know how to Win A War! We should give Afghanistan Two more Years then pull out everyone. We will never win here, there is no way we can kill or try to change the minds of the Taliban. These people remind me of a True Baptist who tell me I'm going to (Hell) if I don't believe what a True Baptist believes  

Glad I'm not a Baptist; but I agree with you whole heartedly "JaxBorn."

In addition, there's too many pressing issues here at home, in addition to the war effort that are draining us financially and economically where we can no longer afford to "chase the Taliban and/or Terrorists;" and, the rest of the world are no longer supporting or going along with us in this fruitless effort.

Heights Unknown

This indeciveness is what is what is driving the non policy we now have. Candidate Obama had said he would focus on Afghanistan. Now indecision rules the day. Not a way to run a war.

Personally, I get bloodlust any time I percieve a slight against our country. Later, I start to realize that kill em all doesn't really suit me. 

This just in: Killing people is bad.

I'm not fit to be ruler of the world. I did hope that President Obama would have better insight than me as well as better instinct that GWB. So far, not so much. Perhaps when he was briefed on the issues as the new Prez, he learned info that made things not as cut and dry as he had previously regarded them.

In issues of war and peace, I deferred to Bush as President, so I will do the same in the case of Obama.

At this time a phrase my father used comes to mind: Sh** or get off the pot.

[Dog Walker]

We toppled Saddam from power and drove the Taliban government out into Pakistan.  Isn't it time to declare victory and come home?  If we could trust the government of Pakistan, maybe we should stay in Afghanistan long enough for them to smash the Taliban in their Northern Provinces while we keep them from coming back into Afghanistan; be an anvil to their hammer.

With the recent terror bombings in their major cities, maybe the Pakistani gov't will get angry enough to really do something.  We could help by getting India to agree not to take advantage in Kashmir and on their border if the Pakistani army was withdrawn from those areas to take on the Taliban.

[FayeforCure]

A Third Surge?

By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK 

Published Oct 24, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Nov 2, 2009

Dick Cheney has accused Barack Obama of "dithering" over Afghanistan. I suppose if the president were to quickly invade a country on the basis of half-baked intelligence, that would demonstrate his courage and decisiveness to Mr. Cheney. In fact, it's not a bad idea for Obama to take his time, examine all the options, and watch how the post-election landscape in Afghanistan evolves. (Click here to follow Fareed Zakaria)

The real question we should be asking in Afghanistan is not "Do we need a surge?" but rather "Do we need a third surge?" The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacityâ€"the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.

In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.

Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219380

[BridgeTroll]

It is great to hear you support the surge Faye...

[FayeforCure]

BT, I am all for defending our country, but to put our young men in harms way in the graveyard of empires is ludicrous, especially when we have already succeeded in pushing Al-Queda out of Afghanistan.

A holiday message from Progressive Democrats of America:

Billions of people will observe holy days over the coming weeks. Christians will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.

Understandably, it is a very busy time. It is also a good time to reflect on the teachings of Christ, no matter which religion one may or may not practice. The Sermon on the Mount encapsulates the philosophy of most modern religions and standards of moral behavior.

Two millennia later, the US is mired in armed conflict; many more will surely die, suffer horrible injuries, and countless numbers will lose loved ones along with their homes and livelihoods. This is madness and infuriatingly hypocritical behavior for a nation that professes to be "Christian."

The terrible human cost is underscored by the billions of dollars being spent to win a war that cannot be won, while domestic policies are threatened due to lack of funding.

The US war in Afghanistan is destined to fail. No invading force has ever conquered the country. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

As this year comes to a close and a fresh year approaches, let's recommit ourselves to a world with Healthcare NOT Warfare, Windmills NOT Weapons, Books NOT Bombs, Employment NOT Armament and Housing NOT Humiliation.

Wishing you peace this holiday season!

[BridgeTroll]

The US war in Afghanistan is destined to fail.

How defeatist.  You all said the same about Iraq.  I guess I was wrong about your support for Mr Obama's decision.  Clearly he feels differently than the Progressive Democrats of America.

[FayeforCure]

BT, I am all for defending our country, but to put our young men in harms way in the graveyard of empires is ludicrous, especially when we have already succeeded in pushing Al-Queda out of Afghanistan.

Well BT, my own quote puts it different. If our goal was to go after Al Queda, we've already succeeded in pushing them out of Afghanistan. It is not our job to continue baby-sitting that country 9 years later.

[BridgeTroll]

I... and ironically... Mr Obama disagree with your assesment... thankfully.

So no â€" I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

[Bostech]

Question is Why did US went to war in first place and What is objective of war???
What we were told on TV is obviously lie and cover up,there is more to story.

Both Al Qaida and Talibans are byproduct of CIA during Afghanistan war with Russia,only reason those two survived onslaught by Russians is because CIA ARMED and TRAINED them.
Without CIA,Afghanistan would be wiped out and controlled by Russia.
To think that Talibans and Al Qaida now are superior soldiers to US military and CIA is a joke.You have to delusional to think US couldn't not wipe out both of them in 30 days.

So that means only one thing,US want Talibans and Al Qaida for reason.

Without them and without War on Terror (trademarked) how else would US invade TWO countries in STRATEGICAL part of world,critical for US??
US CONTROLS both countries,not to mention Iran happen to be in between those two and Pakistan also borders.
4 flies with one strike.

Past 30 years there were lot of failures for US government to take control of regions,especially from Saddam Hussein but he did helped US in end by being bad guy and giving them excellent excuse for invasion.
At the end of day,US took old saying "If you want something to be done right,do it yourself".
So they did,went in themselves invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both places secured,Pakistan government is US controlled anyway and only Iran is left to be taken care of.

Everything goes as planned,only bad thing that could happen if sales of electric cars take of and batteries get improved when gas powered vehicles get kicked out.
Then again I dont think that will happen.

[Bostech]

Strangely,17 years ago I got approached by some guy from nowhere and we started talking,actually he was talking more.
He started talking about war in former Yugoslavia that didnt even start,he said they will win even if casualties go to half a million.I was like WTF.
Well he was close.

He also said CIA will take over Afghanistan and entire region,to secure area.
Back then that entire area was taboo and considered "russian sphere of interest",nobody thought one day US would control entire region.
I thought guy was talking nonsense.
Well there we go 2009 and US controls pretty much entire region.

[civil42806]

Dude your talking to yourself.  Jessie Ventura has a great new tv show, right up your alley.  Also use your prepostions for gods sake