Obama Made the Right Choice on Afghanistan

5 thoughts on “Obama Made the Right Choice on Afghanistan”

1. .
   
   are you drinking the grape or the cherry ?
   
   Obama decided to postpone making a decision.  His strategy is “split the difference.”

   We’ve been there 8 years.  
   
   How is staying 9 1/2 years so different from staying 8 years ?  
   
   How is leaving after 8 years abandoning them, but leaving after 9 1/2 years not abandoning them ?
   
   How is spending $7 Billion on development over 8 years abandoning them, but spending $10 Billion over 9 1/2 years not abandoning them ?

   “… what would be the long-term consequences of abandoning that country, AGAIN ?  How would we be perceived by the Islamic world ?”  
   
   Do you really believe that the Afghan people want us to stay there, prolonging a brutal military occupation, rather than leaving ?  
   
   Sure, the war profiteers and collaborators and the government officials collecting all those bribes want us to stay, but the other 99% want us out yesterday.  
   
   Do you really believe that Muslims worldwide want us to continue our war against their religion ?  That’s kinda what they think this war is about.

   .

   And I’d like to disagree with the way you characterize the “conservative” position on the war.
   
   I think the conservative position is to not go to war unless the security of the US can be enhanced by fighting.  That’s no longer the case in either Iraq or Afghanistan.  
   
   It seems to this conservative that starting wars for fun, or so one can call himself a “war president,” and grab more power, or aid one’s reelection, is a “progressive” attitude, not a conservative one.  I say that because posters here and elsewhere advocate for these wars of choice as a way to change other societies to be more like us.
   
   .

   Log in to Reply

   1. first off, I’m not sure what the best decision is. I respect your arguments of both of you.

      But to speak to the question of 8 years in how does 1½ help – in our Civil War the first 2+ years were a total disaster for the North. You could ask the same question then.

      But the North learned how to fight, put the right people in charge, and then won the war. Things can change dramatically well in to a war.

      Log in to Reply

      1. its true the first two years went poorly for the North. That’s because the best military leaders went with the South, and it took Lincoln two years to find competent generals (Grant, Sherman, etc.)

         A prolonged war often boils down to a war of attrition – who has the resources to outlast the opponent. The South had enough resources for a couple years, but its ability to wage war diminished as its resources ran out (the South had nowhere near the industrial capacity of the North to keep supplying an effective military force). By the end of the war, the Southern armies lacked weapons, ammunition, clothing, and even food, as well as soldiers since the North had a far bigger population to supply an army.

         That being said, I don’t see a lot of similarities between our civil war and the Afghan war.  

         Log in to Reply

   2. As a conservative you state the US should not go to war unless our vital interests and national security is enhanced.

      As a liberal, I would agree 100%, and that is why I oppose the escalation in Afghanistan, why I opposed the invasion of Iraq (as did Pat Buchannan), and why I opposed our involvement in Vietnam.

      None of these wars were, or are, vital to the security of the United States, and in fact are contrary to our national security.  

      Log in to Reply

2. The threat is Pakistani nuclear weapons  falling to AL Queda or the Taliban.

   Log in to Reply