Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
10-02-2009, 10:24 AM #1
Gates favors bolstering troops in Afghanistan, sources say
Gates favors bolstering troops in Afghanistan, sources say
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is leaning toward the view that a significant number of additional combat forces will be needed for the war in Afghanistan, sources tell CNN.
Gates is inclined to back Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, in pursuing a counterinsurgency strategy, defense and administration officials said Thursday.
Both officials stressed that Gates does not necessarily support sending all the additional forces McChrystal would want, which sources have said could be as many as 40,000 troops.
But they said Gates will likely agree with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen, who told Congress last week that he expects more troops will be needed.
So the head general in Afghanistan wants more troops. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman wants more troops. The Defense Secretary wants more troops. Yet the Afghanistan War has received it's lowest ever approval rating and it's continuing to drop. I'm interested to see how the President handles this...it's shaping up to be one of the major issues of his presidency.
-
-
10-02-2009, 02:43 PM #2
i dont get what your trying to say. Should he or should he not add more troops? This is part of the fallout from the last idiot's presidency.
-
10-02-2009, 02:55 PM #3
I don't know...I haven't formed my opinion either way. I'm more interested to see how he handles it than what he actually does. The one thing I don't want is to half do it...if we're going to see that war through, he needs to give the military what they need to win. If we're not, then we don't need to keep insufficient forces over there.
And yes, Bush started the war, but it is now Obama's. He has chosen to continue it instead of put an end to it, so he now has to take ownership of what happens over there.
-
-
10-02-2009, 03:12 PM #4
Im not sure what you are saying??? Its Bush's fault that Obama has to deal with Afghanistan? Wasnt it obama who campaigned on the idea that Afghanistan was the good war and that we needed more troops there???? Thats a new one. i havent heard people blame Bush for Afghanistan yet? I guess now that Afghanistan is a problem for Obama(one he created for himself), its time for the basic Blame Bush tactics again.
-
10-02-2009, 03:19 PM #5
i'm saying its Bush's fault for not going in and doing what we had to do and get out. What is the point for adding more and more troops over time. Its illogical. Almost 10 years later and we still dont have enough troops over there? Sound rediculous to anyone with a lick of sense.
-
-
10-02-2009, 03:30 PM #6
no, not at all. You fail to realize that we are not at war with Afghanistan or a regime that can be toppled. There is no specific end game. We need more troops to complete Obamas politicol goal. he's the one who is choosing to create a war in Afghanistan that we can pretend to win.
-
10-02-2009, 03:48 PM #7
We were in a global war on terrorism. Remember??? Hunt down and kill the enemy. take the fight to them. now tell me why Bush would drop 10s of thousands of Troops into Afghanistan. Does Al Qaeda have Troops? a flag? tanks? The taliban and Afghanistan were harboring terrorists. we toppled them in days. sending more soldiers wont topple them anymore. What would these soldiers have done? a thousand infantry marching in unison into a 3-foot opening of a cave? This isnt Bush's war. Obama abandoned the war on terrorism. I dont know what war he is fighting. I guess its his goal to rid the barren wasteland that is Afghanistan of any terrorists. Force them to move into other countries where we cant go after them????? Then claim victory???? IDK.
-
-
10-02-2009, 04:08 PM #8
You forgot to blame the media...
-
10-02-2009, 04:30 PM #9
its both their faults for thinking that they could stop terrorism
-
10-02-2009, 04:42 PM #10
"its both their faults for thinking that they could stop terrorism"
I doubt either of them thinks this. Obama doesnt care, he just wants to make it appear that he is doing more than Bush or something. Who Knows???? Bush set out to do everything he could to prevent it, slow it down, weaken the terror networks etc..... Its about frequency. You can blame bush if you want. I suppose the other option was to do nothing. Thats what you would do????? Nothing????? or wait, i guess we could blame terrorists for being terrorists. Im sure that would help.
-
Originally Posted by WantToTrade 
