Soaps.com - MESSAGE BOARDS

Do you think we should be sending more troops into Afghanistan, or decreasing our number of troops and be preparing to pull out entirely?

mornin baileysmommy an cats! i havent really heard to much about this, i have ta go read up on it!~but i cant imagine sendin more in!~ i would not want ta have ta make that decision!~

Well, I think in hindsight we all know we should have went to Afghan instead of Iraq. Since we are now 8-9 years later, here IMO.
From a family/friend of Iraq/Afghan soldiers' opinions and experiences, we should have done the job 5 years ago. Our soldiers’ hands have been tied since day one, hence we are still there doing the same thing we did in 2001 – rationing ammo, clothes, food, and water…having the worry (since those allegation not so long ago) about if they fire upon those firing on them, will they be held for murder…yea, we should have been done and out by now, but since we’re not, we cannot pull out until we’re done.
If we pull out now, there will be that huge void younger militant groups WILL fill. We DO need to pull out IMO, but not before we quit this war of politically correct fighting and let our troops do what they were trained to do by the people we put in charge, with ADEQUATE resources!
Of course, one of my fam members had such a rough experience, his opinion is lets pull out regardless, and let them blow themselves up (he was forced to sit in a fox hole with a dead Al-Qaeda man for almost 3 days, after he killed him with his bare hands b/c he was only given 3 bullets for the day and he had already expelled them...he’s still in counseling)
So in shorter words, I think we should let the troops do what needs to be done, and quick, and get them out of there. Afghan is only getting more dangerous. BUT...If we won’t allow our guys to do the deed, get them out of there now.

thank you bailey, i had an opinion but i am nowhere near as informed as some posters, you being one of them
i do not see the difference between afghanistan and iraq, i have heard time and time again, "we should have just put all the troops in afghanistan" i don't know what the big difference is, all i know is i want our soldiers home, quickly and safely

I think if we leave it'll be a mistake! We have already spent so much time and $$$ trying to fix things over there. imo, to leave now would be a slap in the face to all thoseAmericans who gave their lives over there, as well as all the people who live there who are trusting us to keep them safe(and in some instances have risked their lives to help our people fight over there. If we leave the people(women and girls especially) of Afganistan now it's like signing their death warrent! I think it's wrong!! I like the old saying "never say die"!! We need to send more troops and clean house!!

I just wanted to share an e-mail I recieved from Progressive Democrats of America: I understand from what I have read in threads on the board it is okay to cut and paste from an e-mail you have recieved.

It takes a long time to fly from Kabul to Washington--but the real distances between the two capitals have little to do with miles.

In Kabul, weeks ago, I caught glimpses of a society reeling from 30 years of war. To visit that city was to see heart-wrenching effects of violence and neglect. The crisis is beyond urgent.

But last week, on Capitol Hill, I searched for signs of urgency at a time of escalating war. Instead, with some blessed exceptions, the congressional attitude was business as usual.

I’d read about the grim U.S. priorities in Afghanistan. Even on paper, the USA is spending just a dime on non-military programs for every dollar on military activities--in a country where the poverty statistics are among the worst in the world.

But the numbers understate the problem. On the ground, the amount of aid reaching its theoretical recipients is actually much lower than budgets indicate. And the consequences of the skewed priorities are horrific.

Despite all the talk about “winning hearts and minds,” the U.S. war effort has little to offer but destruction.

In Kabul, I saw appalling conditions for the 700 families living at the Helmand Refugee Camp District 5--little more than ditches, torn canvas, mud structures and a water pump. Adults and children spoke of losing relatives due to U.S. bombardment of their homes in Helmand province. Now, malnourished and desperate, they depend on scant handouts from Afghan businessmen.

Capitol Hill seems to be light years away--with an atmosphere of acquiescence still dominant while the Afghanistan war escalates. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized the symptoms more than 40 years ago when he decried what he called “the madness of militarism.”

At the Capitol, many of the clearest and most uplifting voices belong to members of Congress who are on PDA’s national advisory board. Last week I spoke with one of them: Jim McGovern, the Massachusetts Congressman who is the lead sponsor of a bill calling for an exit strategy for the United States in Afghanistan.

You can watch a recent video of Rep. McGovern, speaking on the House floor with clarity and wisdom about the tragic folly of the war.

Just a few dozen members of the House, along with only a few senators, have been willing to vocally challenge the momentum of the Afghanistan war. They deserve our strong support.

As for the rest, they need to hear from us--making the case for a drastic change in policy--to escalate with food, medicine and development aid for Afghanistan instead of more troops and bombs.


Norman Solomon

Co-Chair, Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign
Progressive Democrats of America

bailey, thank you for posting this, it has given me what i need to know, it is time to leave

Your forgetting though that they have already indured under the Taliban oppression. Or what will happen to them when and if we leave. We need to finish what we started and not make all the sacrifices the people over there as well as the soldiers who lost their lives defending that country! To leave now would be a sacrifice! + we are not cowards! And we should never surrender and to leave there now is admitting defeat! The taliban and Al quida would just love that!!
I'd like to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about because they have been there, If an Army general would say that I might believe it but coming from a Buerocrat! Especially when by the name of his group he is against the war! He's biased! and there for not worth my time!!

There is only one quote that comes to my mind on this question. The saying is "Bombing for Peace is like #@$%ing for virginity". It just don't work.

I know the bad post fairy will hit this post in a hurry but that saying makes a hell of a lot of sense no matter how it is worded.

Bush let Osama Bin Laden go free and hunted Hussein instead. Can you believe a deal wasn't struck? Not me. Bush flew Osamas family out of the USA immediately after 911 when no planes were allowed to fly... Osama was once our ally against the Russians and why he is still a free man.
Obama swore he would hunt and find Osama.....keeping his word means rerouting troops to Afghanistan from Iraq. Let the Generals do their job without tying their hands and playing the Washington game of Roulette. Do what you have to do and damn the opinion polls. If Truman and his generals read the opinion polls Hitler and the Japanese would have conquered the pacific basin and all of Europe. Its war..people die....deal with it and stop the pussy footing around.

There is a book called "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, concerning what happened on a mission to Afghanistan. It is a heartbreaker, and the author does not spare the media and those who think it should be a limited war. He also goes into the way the people who helped him had their own code of honor, which goes back centuries. There is also a book on Vietnam, called "War in the Shadows", which deals with the problems of trying to win against an enemy entrenched in his homeland, defending it for religious and ideological reasons. The British had a rough time in Afghanistan in the last century, and the Russians finally gave up and withdrew. I understand the terrain is terribly rough and unforgiving, plus the military is dealing partly with a tribal and nomadic society, each group loyal to a separate Warlord. These warriors are used to surviving on almost nothing in the unforgiving terrain.
To win, it would have to be all or nothing, and I do have trouble thinking about civilian casualties.