This is so wrong

Obama has never been Kucinich, as you know. And this move points to the heart of my discomfort with him, me an Obama voter. This is going further past our long time area-foot dipping in molasses (oh, let's support the mujahadeen) to well above the knees.

I voted for Obama. He was not my first choice, but next to the Republicans he looked pretty good. So far, he has been a disappointment in Afghanistan.

If the U.S. troops were going to be anywhere, it should have been Afghanistan rather than Iraq in the first place.

Well, certainly not Iraq, I'll agree on that.

Oh, wait.. kuwait. Snort.

Cutting to the short hairs, I've watched my country, overt or covert, make many moves that may or may not have worked out at the time based on a compilation of principle, viewable as dubious.

I agree we need a good defense, but maybe not so much if we weren't such non principled asses.

I think Obama means well, but is a lamb, however sturdy, facing many wolves.

I'm not sure if Obama is a genuine resolver trying not to be a lamb (my present take), or a worker of middle of road.

To my post on kuwait. I have relative in the first in last out folks re gulf I. I do care. He did well. I see him as used.

Meanwhile, all sorts of atrocities happened elsewhere.

Obama laid claim to Afghanistan during his campaign against McCain/Bush

It's his tarbaby because he wanted to decry Iraq but still seem butch somewhere else - Afghanistan.

So the test now is how each of these countries come out of US occupation/involvement.

Right now it looks like Iraq is well ahead of Afghanistan and the argument that we should have been in Afghanistan rather than Iraq is a non-sequitor is Iraq emerges as a stable democrasy.

Agree with you totally, Intrepid. Generally I'm in agreement with dys and edgar but not on this one. If anything, I don't think Obama is sending in enough troops to back up the ones already there. One brigade? That's paltry. Take them out of Iraq, where we don't belong, and concentrate on securing Afghanistan against the Taliban and alQaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. We have a legitimate stake there. And put a little scare into the Pakistanis while we're at it.

once again, nothing to add but, damn straight, never should have left and gone to iraq in the first place

Dys and Edgar and I'm skipped. Waves hand.

"We have a legitimate stake there", and could scare pakistanis?
Christ.

Translated, as, you're kidding.

I don't really think the US is willing to accept another Vietnam.

I hope they are not.

I see it, sure.

No one in charge seems to be reconsidering.

They can join the Canadians who have been in Afghanistan all along.

Too little, likely too late.

Well, I'm glum.

U.S. President Barack Obama has told Peter Mansbridge of CBC News that he hopes plans for beefing up the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will be coming "very soon." Obama added that when he visits Canada this Thursday, he will discuss with Prime Minister Stephen Harper "the importance of a comprehensive strategy that people of both countries can support" when it comes to the future military operations in Afghanistan. Canada is scheduled to pull its troops out of the country in 2011.

Burble.

I don't think the analogy with Vietnam is valid, dys. The one and only point of resemblance that I can see is that in both cases the US was helping to shore up a not too popular, repressive government. But in 'Nam, the VC had the support of a large segment of the people; the Taliban do not have this support in Afghanistan. The Taliban was hated and feared by the majority of Afghans when it was in power; it is hated and feared today. The problem in Vietnam was strictly a Vienamese affair; we had no business interfereing in what was, esentially, a power struggle between two factions of Vietnamese. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a global movement, allied with the Taliban. I don't recall that the Viet Cong ever perpetrated acts of terrorism on US soil.

And I don't think that our actions in Afghanistan need echo those in Vietnam. This does not have to be a case of continuing "escalation." I'm willing to concede I could be wrong on this analysis, but that's my feeling at the moment.