If there is anything that can bring about bipartisanship in Washington, it’s Afghanistan. It’s clear from comments made this week by Carl Levin and Nancy Pelosi that Obama doesn’t have automatic support for additional troop increases in Afghanistan. If he asks for more troops, he’ll have to rely on a lot of Republicans to get the funding.
I share the view of Rep. Pomeroy.
“They have a relatively short period of time to show that we’re on a path that’s going to demonstrate positive results,” said Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who visited Afghanistan last week. “This is our last best chance to change things around.”
I don’t see a plan. I can’t support something I don’t understand.
The only plan is to get out. Anything else is total failure.
Very good Booman. I was afraid those keys didn’t work on your new computer.
It’s deja vu time in the Republic. General Stanley McChrystal meet General William Westmoreland.
The situation in the whole of south Asia is far from simple and has more facets than a classic, round-cut diamond.
For whatever reason, I do not see any U.S. administration being open & honest with the American people and the world as to our reason for being in Afghanistan. What exactly are the “vital U.S. interests” at stake here?
There are obviously problems that will affect the U.S. on a long term basis. But I do not believe that military force is the proper to use to resolve those problems.
Diplomatic advances should be much cheaper on the Treasury and will achieve a more permanent long term solution.
I’ve always wondered: If we’d stayed out of Afghanistan, would the Afghanis themselves have taken care of the Taliban in their own way? Seems to me there’s good reason to think so.
In which case, what is there to justify our presence?