Comments on: 17,000 More Troops to Afghanistan (Updated)

By: DavidL

DavidL — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:55:30 +0000

In war indecision kills. Lyndon Johnson bungled Vietnam because while did not want to the first President to lose a war, he refused to fight the war to win. Is Barack Obama creating his own Vietnam, refusing to either quit or commit to winning? The general wanted thirty thousand. Obama sends seventeen.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:48:37 +0000

As I see it the larger the footprint, the less tolerable our presence is to Afghanistan’s population.

Apologies, but a fatuous line. Civilian casualties (resulting from bad intel, air power or some combination) and no civil governance/reconstruction progress are what makes a US presence less tolerable, not an increased US troop presence of 17,000. Which, depending on MOS, is too little to fundamentally shift the war, admittedly.

By: markm

markm — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:46:54 +0000

Not to get off topic....but Afghanistan is a shovel ready project. Boots on the ground need a LOT of wares made in the USandA...and I mean LOTS of various items. There are tons of small businesses from coast to coast that make the items they will need.

As I see it the larger the footprint, the less tolerable our presence is to Afghanistan’s population.

I've read a few articles and one spot on the evening news saying they are tiring of our presence.