US General asks for more troops

[viper37]

Here is a US General resquestion more troops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html?hpid=topnews

It is speculated that the reason such a report is leaked, combined with the new administration dragging its feet to send the promised reinforcements (and most of the Euros refusing to either send troops or go outside the base), is that the US is about ready to cut&run.

As Al-Queida already won?

[Jaron]

No more troops for this lost cause!!!!

[Darth Wagtaros]

No blood for useless wasteland!

[Grey Fox]

It's a waste of resources. Let the Chinese handle it.

[Josquius]

Generals always want more troops. Even if you've the most kick arse super powered military ever they'll still complain.
Its their job.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Generals always want more troops. Even if you've the most kick arse super powered military ever they'll still complain.
Its their job.

If he had a million troops he'd claim that Al-Quaeda had 2 million.

[Valmy]

If he had a million troops he'd claim that Al-Quaeda had 2 million.

I knew George B McClellan was in command in Afghanistan.  Finally an explanation for why we are sucking it up out there.

[Admiral Yi]

US domestic political factors do not favor a prolongued presence in Afghanistan.

Wouldn't it be a historical irony if we ended up winning the bad war and losing the good war?

[KRonn]

I think just now the US is really focusing efforts, changing tactics/strategy in Afghanistan, to what perhaps should have been happening more strongly before. But Iraq got all the attention, was a bigger conflict, and really, Iraq is a major nation in the middle of the Mid East, so should have gotten more focus. Questions are whether we should have been in Iraq, but that's now beside the point of winning/losing in Afghanistan.

I give Pres Obama credit for pushing the new efforts in Afghanistan, new commanders including General Petraeus. I hope we can give it time for new ideas and more focus, since things had been stagnating there before due to lack of attention and what ever else. We were about to quit on Iraq too, but got new military leadership and ideas in there, after all the mistakes and poor leadership by Rumsfeld, Bremmer, etc.

[Valmy]

Wouldn't it be a historical irony if we ended up winning the bad war and losing the good war?

I think it would be historically logical that we would succeed where we have been putting most of our resources.

But yeah I see what you are getting at.  I disagree that political factors compell us to leave Afghanistan, I actually think the public wants the government to focus more on it.

[The Brain]

Time to make the well-ordered moesha step forward.

[KRonn]

Pres Obama probably can't just leave, given how he put so much emphasis on Afghanistan as the correct war, over the optional war in Iraq. He'd be vilified in that, probably even by those who want us to just leave now, especially if Afghanistan becomes a huge mess after we go. Like he almost can't win no matter his decision, so I hope he can give things time and resources to give a good faith effort. And I hope more of the moderate Dems understand that and give him some lee way, given that some of the other Dems (and non-Dems) are starting to call for withdrawal.

[Razgovory]

Maybe we can just buy them out.  It might be cheaper if we just pay everyone to leave and declare it a super fund site.  Then dump toxic waste on it.

[DisturbedPervert]

US domestic political factors do not favor a prolongued presence in Afghanistan.

Wouldn't it be a historical irony if we ended up winning the bad war and losing the good war?

We'll just reinvade in 2012

[crazy canuck]

Its crunch time in the sense that the Canadian forces will be leaving in 2011, no other nations are going to contribute more forces and the forces from other nations will likely be pulled out or reduced as well.

Like it or not this is about to become an American war very quickly and you folks have to figure out what you actually want to do about it.