I just got done watching the online replay of This Week. I also read the Ryan Crocker interview in Newsweek. All things considered ... I don't know what to believe. At least with Iraq, we had a lot to work with. This is purely a shot in the dark.

The whole point of attacking the Taliban was that they harbored al-Qaeda. We smacked them down, and al-Qaeda fled to the hills on the border of Pakistan. But we won't go into those hills. In the first place, the terrain makes an attack dangerous, likely to cost thousands of soldiers' lives, and we wouldn't capture al-Qaeda anyway. Second, it's in Pakistan territory, and we're not willing to mount a huge military offensive there. So if we're not going to do it right, why waste our resources trying to rebuild Afghanistan into a modern day Ecuador? 

I understood what we were doing in Iraq. You could agree or disagree, but at least we could understand it. But I don't understand what we're doing in Afghanistan. That doesn't make it wrong ... but someone had better come up with a better explanation that what we've got so far.

KC -- you echo what I've been posting here occassionally for over a year. So that means it was during the last administration.

What eaxctly are US and UK troops dying for in Afghanistan in 2009?

I understood and supported the actions post 9/11. But this President RECENTLY made the most mindbogglingly disgraceful statement I have heard for a while. I paraphrase, but the jist was this: He didn't see victory as his goal.

Then sir, what the heck are you doing sending young men to fight and die?  That's unacceptable. Well it is to me.

That was bad enough. But last week conincided with two public pronouncments.

We had a senior General boasting how the change in tactics has "reduced to their lowest level" so-called "civilian" casualties.

At the same time, US and UK deaths rose to their highest level, matching Iraq in the bad days.

Anyone want to make an obvious correlation?

Sorry -- but this make NO SENSE.

I'd like to support the mission. BUT WHAT THE FRACK IS IT MR PRESIDENT? Tell us what the mission is. Muddle and silence so far, based on a cynical campaign promise.

Welcome to AFGHANI-NAM.

Oh -- anyone care to accuse me of saying this because Obama is black?

"Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do for your President..."

and besides..despite the fact that Obama has called it the front line against terrorism it is obvious that he and his administration for the most part have no heart for the fight.  That will leave our troops in a battle on two fronts..one against the Taliban and the 2nd against the administration for the needed assets to win the fight against the Taliban.

One thing that Obama has done is that he seems to have gotten the Pakistani government off its arse and gone after the brigands in the border region....along with the reccomendations of the Marine commendant I beleive that an effective military policy can be implemented without 10s of thousands of US troops inside that hostile country...

George Will is right.....and for us conservative republicans it will be better not to advocate a half arsed Obama military policy

Paarl of Rhodesia

1. To say that we've been fighting there for 8 years is a bit misleading. Yes, we've had a military combat presence there, and yes there have been combat deaths consistently over that time. However, the initial push in-country took it's toll on the Taliban and forced the survivors out of country to a place we were unwilling to follow. Had we gone into Pakistan, support would have immediately dissipated.

2. Since the war on terrorism, or... disagreement with beards, or whatever we're calling it at DHS these days, is truly global, it is ridiculous to suggest that it could be won in even a decade; especially without the assistance from so many (cowardly) nations. With Iraq stabilized, we can now turn our full attention back to Afghanistan; though had Europe not been such a pantywaist, they could've been holding down the fort there and doing what we're doing now, during the last 6 years, and still been standoffish on Iraq. And as we've seen, Barry coming aboard didn't change their attitude. And,

3.  The question in my mind is not whether its sustainable now, or how many more casualties are likely to occur. I'm a Marine Corps veteran, and there is a possibility that my son will enter military service after he graduates high school next June. I understand the human life issue. I understand the strain on the military issue. But if we don't finish the job with our trained men and women, how long after we leave before our untrained civilians are hit again, and how many of our friends and relatives have to be victimized by an ideologically-driven group of radicals (the present Administration notwithstanding) hell-bent on destroying our way of life?

Its a question of long-term for me.  If we leave now, what happens over then next 3 years with the second coming of Jimmy Carter in the White House?

I'm no military strategist, but it never made any sense to me that when we were fighting a tough battle in Afgan and had them on the run but never had the country secured our leaders were already on their way to pour more resources and troops and money into a theatre that had nothing to do with why were fighting - 9/11. the decision to go into iraq might have doomed any progress we could have made in in Afgan. 

... on a side note i don't believe in spending trillions on wars of choice while our borders are overrun our unemployment is high, our deficit is higher than ever and our middle class shrinking into non existence. 

but i guess you'd call me old school conservative. take care of our country first before you spend my tax dollars (or add debt for our children) on destroying and rebuilding cities on the other side of the planet 

Is George Will the new Walter Cronkite now?

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

I'm with Will on this one for most of the reasons others have cited on here. I've gone through a pretty long thought process to get there, but I'm there now.

Are we to believe that Obama is so concerned about the Taliban and Al Qaeda that he is ready to send in thousands of men and women to the mountains of Afghanistan for years to wipe them out?

Yet, Obama does nothing, nothing, nothing to stem the flow of Al Qaeda terrorists trained in South America or elsewhere and slipping through our southern borders into this country.

http://www.examiner....

Is he so concerned about the jihadists in Afghanistan and yet, decides to release inmates from Gitmo, and prosecute the very people who got so much important information from these same terrorists?

Why is he so willing to send in thousands--perhaps as many as 300,000--of our young men and women to a new battle zone for years to come, and yet seems to have little to say about the why, wherefore, and how-come of such a huge decision--beyond a few cliches?

In addition, I do not want any Americans involved in a war where the strategies are developed and enforced by untrustworthy, deceptive goons. No sir! Not this time.

General Elmer Obama Fudd can take his war and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.