More troops needed says McChrystal...

[emmett]

but President Obama who is obviously far more qualified than the general he himself appointed to head the effort in Afghanistan, says:

Obama said in a series of television interviews broadcast Sunday that he will not allow politics to govern his decision. He left little doubt he is re-evaluating whether more forces will do any good.

General McChrystal says:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said in a confidential report that without additional forces, the war against insurgents there will end in failure,

So...the United States' head general, who is on the ground, that was hired by Obama, says we will fail without more troops, a "surge" so to speak and Barack Obama says he doubts whether it will do any good.

McChrystal also said:

Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating

And our President and CIC said:

A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question

Sounds like a bunch of malarky to me. Hmmm. Does this seem like a little da-je-vu to you guys? Does to me! Only problem is now we do not have a CIC that supports his generals or for that matter believe they know more about how to win than he does. Now I don;t iomagine it is any secret that GW clearloy was right about the surge helping the Iraq situation (even though Harry Reid claimed it couldn't be won), so I'm curious now what Harry, Nancy, and some of the kookie liberals are going to say now that they are being put in the almost exact same scenario.

It is interesting that most are quiet as of now. I posted this thread to make it clearer my point about another thread. Can a man who has no military experience be a proper CIC? I think Barack Obama is answering this question for me very well. Politics before the safety of our troops. Politics before admitting one is wrong. Politics and party over the security of our country.

Barack Obama is wrong for our country. Stand up liberals and face this before we all are wearing turbins and praying to Allah. Or...are you...like your messiah, incapable of admitting when you have made a bad choice? But then maybe you just believe President Obama knows more about winning a war than a man with 35 years experience, which would not surprise me.

[Mr. P]

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Perhaps since Obama is such an expert in dealing with this war, we can send him over to scrape and bow before the Taliban and Al Quaeda, while pulling out our troops behind his back, then leave him behind. Yep, that's the ticket, I say we send him over there and bring our troops home, seems like a fair trade to me.

[emmett]

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?

THAT...is an excellent question.

However...

like Iraq, if we are going to be there....let's win. I'm all for just packing up and coming home personally.

Watching how political parties use their influence over our military in completely different ways when application is nearly identical makes me feel that the value of our most precious resource, our children in the military are being used as pawns in a quest to promote an agenda.

In closing, why ARE we in Afghanistan anyway?

[gabosaurus]

I believe we should take ALL our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the Mexican border. Let the Iraqis and Afghans defend their own countries. I am more interesting in defending OUR nation.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The best thing we can do for the Iraquis and Afghans would be to pull out all our troops, get all our contractors out, issue economic and humanitarian sanctions against them and let them get a taste of life in the real world. If they wish to restore economic and humanitarian aid they can trade it for terrorists that THEY capture and hold to be tried as war criminals.

[emmett]

Glad to know you and Gabby are on the same page here. That's a warm and fuzzy moment. lol