'Tough year' ahead in Afghanistan: US general

[Yurt]

'Tough year' ahead in Afghanistan: US general

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Even with an additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, the top US commander there predicted "a tough year" in 2009 and said the fight against insurgents would require a major commitment of up to four years.

General David McKiernan, who commands US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, spoke a day after President Barack Obama approved the deployment in coming months of 17,000 troops, increasing the current US force by about 50 percent.

"Even with these additional forces, I have to tell you, 2009 is going to be a tough year," McKiernan told reporters at the Pentagon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090218...zT_OFs5z4EtbAF


because a dem is now president, the left will be silent on the timeline issue...how sad they politicize wars and cause failure.

[moderate democrat]

fighting a war against our real enemies is infinitely more sensible than starting and continuing a war against folks who were NOT our real enemies. AQ and the Taliban who really did harbor them are now, and have always been, in Afghanistan.... they were NEVER in Iraq.

[Yurt]

fighting a war against our real enemies is infinitely more sensible than starting and continuing a war against folks who were NOT our real enemies. AQ and the Taliban who really did harbor them are now, and have always been, in Afghanistan.... they were NEVER in Iraq.

so you want iraq to fail, i understand

you do not support iraq, hence you want it to fail

[moderate democrat]

so you want iraq to fail, i understand

you do not support iraq, hence you want it to fail

purposely misread my words. I do NOT want our military or diplomatic efforts to fail anywhere.

[Kathianne]

fighting a war against our real enemies is infinitely more sensible than starting and continuing a war against folks who were NOT our real enemies. AQ and the Taliban who really did harbor them are now, and have always been, in Afghanistan.... they were NEVER in Iraq.

YOU want us involved in a war against a people that are clueless to why we wish to war with them? Hello? Bin Ladin and the Taliban are way separate from the drug dealing people of Afghanistan, trying to eek out a living from their poppies.

You know, we know, we can't 'win' here. Vietnam was winnable, Afghanistan? Not.

[moderate democrat]

YOU want us involved in a war against a people that are clueless to why we wish to war with them? Hello? Bin Ladin and the Taliban are way separate from the drug dealing people of Afghanistan, trying to eek out a living from their poppies.

You know, we know, we can't 'win' here. Vietnam was winnable, Afghanistan? Not.

are you advocating leaving Afghanistan with AQ and the Taliban basically undiminished?

[Yurt]

purposely misread my words. I do NOT want our military or diplomatic efforts to fail anywhere.

do you support bush's liberation of iraq? do you support what we are doing in iraq?

[Kathianne]

are you advocating leaving Afghanistan with AQ and the Taliban basically undiminished?

Considering Pakistan is going Islam major? Yea. With Obama in the seat and Congress backing him 110%, think we will do well not to call out that they can do anything they want. We should be happy if they don't detonate a nuke in major city. In fact, we should be willing to give up the 100 virgins we can give.

[moderate democrat]

Considering Pakistan is going Islam major? Yea. With Obama in the seat and Congress backing him 110%, think we will do well not to call out that they can do anything they want. We should be happy if they don't detonate a nuke in major city. In fact, we should be willing to give up the 100 virgins we can give.

we'll have to just agree to disagree on that issue