GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

And of course, leaving and letting the Taliban take the country back will be wonderful for the Afghan people, and do so much for the West's credibility and reputation for having the will to finish what it starts.

How about fighting a country that gave a base of operations to people who invaded our country and murdered thousands of our citizens?

Haven't you heard? We already punished the Taliban big-time. Duh!!!!!!!!

You mean kicking them out and then letting them come back in and win is punishment enough for invading our counry and murdering thousands? Sorry, but in my personal opinion the US would be better off without people who don't even believe in fighting back when attacked.

I wondered how long before Robert Gates became disenchanted enough to start speaking out against Obama's waffling and pandering to terrorists and despots, etc. I think Obama is using the election issue in Afghanistan to stall for time until he can concoct a reason and plan to leave from there, as I do not think his heart is in the cause over there.

"Gates: U.S. Cannot Wait for Afghan Election to Make Troop Decision
Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells reporters aboard his plane to Tokyo that the administration cannot "sit on our hands" with regard to troop levels in Afghanistan."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/obama-praises-karzai-decision-accept-runoff-election/?test=latestnews

Obama is not waffling, he is considering the best way to go forward rather than just "staying the course" just for the sake of it. The problem we are having also involves Pakistan so the problem is bigger than just Afghanistan.

Okie, Brandon, please tell us what limit, if any, there should be on USA lives and treasury lost in "winning" in Afghanistan? For instance, would winning, whatever that means, be worth, say, 50,000 additional USA deaths and an additional trillion dollars?

I will admit that Afghanistan is no small problem, in terms of knowing which way to go, what to do, and I also recognize the problem with Pakistan. No matter who is president, it would not be easy, nor would any decision automatically translate into overnight results. I cannot honestly tell you what I would do if I were president, because I am the first to tell you that I do not have access to all of the latest and best intelligence.

With that said, it seems obvious to me that Obama is wavering, and stalling. We already know he has gone weeks without even talking to McChrystal, and not even talking to him more than a time or two since he appointed him to head the effort in Afghanistan. For one thing, I can tell you that no responsible president that cared about national security and the troops would be so AWOL in regard to one of his top jobs, if not his top job, so that is so blatantly incompetent that should raise questions in every person's mind without regard to whether you voted for Obama or not. It is also apparent now, by the article I posted, that Obama and Gates are not on the same page and is it possible Obama is not even talking to Gates much now? That is unacceptable as a president, it shows he is more interested in other things, perhaps obsessed with Fox News because they happen to point out the radicals in his administration, such as the admirers of Chairman Mao?

I want us to be successful in Afghanistan, but worry that we have no intelligent decision or commitment out of Obama. If I trusted Obama's judgement, which I do not, and if I knew that he was actually engaged in knowing all of the pertinent information and evaluation of strategies to make a decision apart from his own political future, then I would tend to have more confidence that he is in the process of making the right decision.

I do not want us to be in Afghanistan forever, and worry that we are in a situation that is a quagmire that could ultimately be far worse than Iraq, but the same reasons that we went there in the first place seem to still be true, the Taliban and Al Qaida, but is there a new or different way to approach the problem than the ones we have tried and are continuing? If Obama comes up with one, I would give him credit, but I don't think the right way to do it is to be disengaged and without alot of communication with his commanders and Secretary of Defense.

I had confidence in Bush to make decisions without regard to his own political future, I think he made decisions based upon the well being of America and the troops that he sent into battle. I cannot say all of his decisions were perfect, and the world is a treacherous and dangerous place, war is not pretty but sometimes necessary, but at least he gave it his best, not based upon his own political future, but based upon protecting the country not only short term but long term. And he was engaged, he talked with his commanders and Secretary of Defense I think almost daily, and made his best effort to be totally informed and engaged so that he could make the best decisions. That is all we can ask out of a president.

When someone attacks you and murders thousands of your civilians, you don't run a cost benefits analysis and then withdraw letting them triumph. You strike back and fight until you've won. Incidentally, the number of coalition deaths in Afghanistan so far is about 1400. I believe the US deaths in WW2 were about 320,000.

I don't think it is possible to be able to say at some point, "we've won" when it comes to any of these wars we are currently fighting because we are fighting an ideological war without boundaries (not fighting nations but rather extremist groups.)

However, we can attempt to contain the risk to both ourselves and the people who live in the areas of danger. Right now Pakistan and Afghanistan both pose a great risk in terms of extremist groups, AQ, and the Taliban and that should be our focus for however long it takes using all of the means at our disposal both military and diplomatic.

On the other hand it is not our job to nation build, we should just concentrate on the fight with those groups mentioned above in whatever strategy fits (or works best) the problems.

IMO for whatever its worth or not.

I know its not trendy, acceptable, or considered smart to "nation build," however it appears to me that one of the best ways to fight these groups is to help their host countries become emotionally or politically healthy enough to help us rid themselves of these scourges, and then after we can eventually leave, to maintain a situation that limits and discourages terrorist groups from operating there. It requires a country to have the desire to become healthy politically, and it could take decades to happen, but it is not impossible if we do the right thing, coupled with patience.

It is not our place to structure countries based on our security or ideological views. If the people want our help, then that is one thing, but to force our own way of life on people even if we think it would make them and us safer is not ethical. It is up the Afghan people, the same as in Iraq, to want to discourage extremist and to run their country as they see fit, we can't force it on them no more than we forced it on the people in Iraq despite our best efforts.

As you know, the Taliban didn't attack us. Nor is there any evidence that, besides allowing AQ to stay in Afghanistan, the Taliban knew that AQ would attack on 9/11. Please answer my questions. Would 50,000 deaths be acceptable?

Can we assume then that you would not have supported what we did with Germany or Japan following World War II?

Exactly what did 'you' do with Germany?

I mean, in the British Zone - you do know that Germany was divided in four zone plus the four sectors of Berlin, do you? - in the British Zone the (political) development was a bit faster, but the Bizone and later the Trizone wasn't an American idea. (There are some "nice" documents in Potsdam showing what "you" actually wanted ...)

But nevertheless: we are really grateful that we finally got our full sovereignty back ... on 15 March 1991.

The whole problem of fighting against a guerrilla style enemy. I seem to remember reading something along the lines that a conventional military force needs to outnumber a guerrilla enemy by more than 7 to 1 to gain an advantage (not my opinion-I lack sufficient knowledge of military operations to form one).

As for whether the US should stay. F@cked if I know.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to the people who attacked us, and then they refused our requests to extradite them, which makes them accessories to the attack on our country. As to the 50,000 deaths, first of all the total number of deaths of all coalition forces up until now is a tiny fraction of that number. As for civilian deaths, we should do our best to avoid operations with a high risk to civilians caught in the area. Secondly, the question is like asking whether the police should expend xxx number of hours trying to catch domestic criminals who blew up a large mall deliberately killing all of the men, women, and children inside. If such a crime occurred, the main important idea would be that the perpetrators must be caught, and it would be very misguided to focus energy on deciding the number of hours the police ought to spend before declaring that it was time to stop looking and allow the monsters who committed the crime to win. I'm simply not going to answer your question. I think that we should try harder to win in Afghanistan, and I'm disgusted by your attitude about dealing with people who helped a group that attacked us and murdered our citizens.

You are ducking the question of how many US deaths would be OK over the years fighting in Afghanistan. I think that puts you out of the discussion.

I remember a time in Nam when we had lost a total of 5,000 GI's. People were saying that we had to stay in Nam to get revenge for those 5,000. As you know, we stayed and lost a total of 58,000 before we escaped the country off the roof of our embassy.

Brandon, you are correct, and this relates to the "Bush Doctrine," which justifiably said we consider not only those terrorists that attacked us but those that provide a safe haven for terrorists as being responsible and fair game for retaliation. It is much like a situation of a murder or bank robbery where the driver of the get away car is also very guilty and an assessory to the crime, even though they did not directly commit the crime. The Taliban is therefore very very guilty and responsible for being a part of the Al Qaeda problem.