do you support additional troops in afghanistan

[rightwinger]

We are there, we went there for a reason, unless the mission has changed we need to complete it, If that requires more troops then send them. If the mission is completed then let's ge the hell out of there.

Are our troops aware of what that mission is and when they will know whether it has been accomplished?

I wished I could answer that. When we went into Afghanistan the Mission was fairly clear; Capture or Kill UBL, and destroy any AL Queada or Taliban that gets in the way.

Today I'm not sure what the mission has become. Mr Obama needs to let the country know. But he can't make up his own mind.

Thanks Ollie
I think that is the point. We went into Afghanistan with a clear mission, once we became peacekeepers, that mission blurs. Adding troop strength to support an unclear objective makes no sense to me.
The mission as I see it now is to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and maintain safety. That can take a year, it can take ten years or it may nevere happen.

Without a clear objective, I'd just as soon pull our men out

 

[Charles Stucker]

If they'd send the 140,000 the general said initially would be needed to clean out that shit hole, I'd say all for it.

If they're just sending enough to get killed, fuck it. Pull them out.

There exists a logistical problem with sending more troops. The military is over-committed; Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Putting troops in Afghanistan is both expensive, at a time of skyrocketing debt, and requires the manpower be available. The only way to get more manpower is to have either more volunteers, or draft people. I doubt anyone can raise support for a draft for this effort, so there is little option; we cannot send enough troops.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think we should bring ALL of our troops home from Afghanistan before next Tuesday morning. Next Tuesday afternoon we should NUKE Afghanistan! Problem solved.

 

[California Girl]

We are there, we went there for a reason, unless the mission has changed we need to complete it, If that requires more troops then send them. If the miossion is completed then let's ge the hell out of there.

I agree.

Since it affects my loved ones, I would like us out as soon as possible. However, we either need to send enough to do the job properly - with minimual casualties - or cut and run.

 

[Mike458877]

I guess I fail to understand the logic here from the White House and Obama.

The request for more troops and assets in general is always two fold. You wish to be able to achieve your objectives and equally important, you want enough assets in the theater to properly protect and support the men and women you currently have conducting operations.

The Commander of our Armed Forces, Obama has one obligation first and that is to the men and women who are currently in harms way. To deprive them of the assets their commanding General (the military expert in charge) is nothing less than dereliction of duty!

Absolutely nothing should stand between the Commander and Chief properly protecting our troops in harms way. It has nothing to do with American politics and it certainly has nothing to do with the politics of another nation.

When will we learn?

Obama should either stand behind those serving under him 100% or he needs to recall all assets back to US soil. To do anything less is not fulfilling his job as Commander and Chief and should he fail to act decisively then he needs to be replaced. Nothing less would happen for any of his military personnel.

Mike

 

[Charles Stucker]

I think we should bring ALL of our troops home from Afghanistan before next Tuesday morning. Next Tuesday afternoon we should NUKE Afghanistan! Problem solved.

Afghanistan is primarily an agricultural society, their main cash crop seems to be poppy. If we could end our nationwide affair with heroin we would devastate that income and make them incapable of threatening the uS. Nuking the country would be overkill, an atrocity against the civilians who compose the majority of the population, and a stumbling block for future diplomacy the US might attempt with every other nation on Earth.
As another poser suggested we might be able to get enough troops to Afghanistan if we pull people out of Japan and Germany; does anyone have recent figures on troop availability in those locations?
Given North Korea's recent history withdrawing the troops which keep them bottled up may be a poor choice.

I'll remind everyone that historically only the Mongols succeeded in pacifying Afghanistan and they used genocide, a tactic I oppose.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I think we should bring ALL of our troops home from Afghanistan before next Tuesday morning. Next Tuesday afternoon we should NUKE Afghanistan! Problem solved.

Afghanistan is primarily an agricultural society, their main cash crop seems to be poppy. If we could end our nationwide affair with heroin we would devastate that income and make them incapable of threatening the uS. Nuking the country would be overkill, an atrocity against the civilians who compose the majority of the population, and a stumbling block for future diplomacy the US might attempt with every other nation on Earth.
As another poser suggested we might be able to get enough troops to Afghanistan if we pull people out of Japan and Germany; does anyone have recent figures on troop availability in those locations?
Given North Korea's recent history withdrawing the troops which keep them bottled up may be a poor choice.

I'll remind everyone that historically only the Mongols succeeded in pacifying Afghanistan and they used genocide, a tactic I oppose.

Germany is at about 20% of what it was in 1991. Most of our troops have been pulled out of there. And the Army itself is only about 50% the size it was in 91. That seems the problem to me. Once the wall fell the military was slashed to pieces.