Reasons Why We Will Be in Afghanistan a While More

The "president" is not sending 1,400 additional troops over there... He is authorizing the Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, to use his discretion to send UP TO an additional 10% (1,400) troops to shore up the forces in advance of the expected Spring offensive. I thought Presidents were supposed to listen to the Generals and Secretaries that are closer to the action?

And if the president had said, "No, you can't have any more troops", then the Right would be screaming about "cut & run", and "The president isn't listening to his commanders..."

So, which is it to be?

Anyone watch Restrepo?

Just like me sending my dog after the neighbors cat. IT ISN'T MY FAULT! I think the Mighty O still has more money to make on his defense industry investments. :thumbsup:

As Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed forces and head of the National Security Council....it is the President who ultimately authorizes the troop increases so, yes, it's the President sending 1,400 more troops to Afghanistan within 6 months of when the alleged "drawdown" is to begin.

I just wish both the President and Secretary would finally admit that there really isn't any significant "drawdown" slated for 2011. It's not possible if the President intends to sustain the small gains made over the past year.

We either need to be all in or get the hell out. Right now we are "a little bit pregnant" in Afghanistan.

I actually agree with you. I think the concept of "Go ALL IN, or Get Out" is the only way...And it is obvious that we are NOT going to "Go All IN", so the sooner we get out the sooner we stop watching our kids come home in steel boxes.

Since we have a clear enemy in this war, the question of fight them here or fight them there plays into it.

We're already "fighting them here." It's cheaper than the hundred$-of-million$ to keep our guys over there. Let THEM spend THEIR money to get over here. The money we're spending to keep an unnecessary force over there could be better spent finding new ways to make us strip at airports and (seriously) doing a better job of screening incoming shipping and containers..

So with our border security, that resembles a chain link fence constructed to be a dam against the ocean, we should let them keep taking out large numbers of civilians because its more cost effective?

I'm sorry... Other than Bush's failure on 9/11, which "large numbers of civilians" are you referring to?

So, do to cost, you feel we should pull out and fight them here? Brilliant, please apply for one of the many openings in the Obama administration. They need more of the best and brightest.