Yup, our troops are coming home as promised....

Most didn't think they would be in body bags with the mission not accomplished...

Not to worry, the Obama Administration is due to make a decision in "a matter of weeks" on what they're going to do there.  Hmm, how many flag draped coffins can we expect before that decision is made? 

What Owe-bama is really telling the military is this,

"Don't worry boys, as soon as we're done screwing up health care and Chicago's Olympic hopes, we'll come up with something for Afghanistan. Not many of you voted for me anyway so screw you!  Sit there and wait!"

Hard for me to believe a suprise attack of hundreds of armed fighters could have been pulled off with nobody suspecting it. Sounds like intelligence and relations with the locals need some serious improvement.

Obama on Afghanistan?: "Frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely...It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.”

Besides....It's date night!

I thought date night was Wednesday night?  oh, thats right.  Wednesday night is beer and shots night in the Blue Room...

Mr. President*, how did your recent meeting with Gen. McChrystal go? Did by chance the word "surge" enter the conversation? I trust you're not so naive as to consider this matter or that of Iran to be above your pay grade, or believe that a call at 3 a.m. won't disrupt one of your White House soirees.

I love to watch as the bunch of you destroy what was once a Republican stranglehold on the military vote.

Are your comments an example of what you consider respect for our serviceman's lives.

10 troops dieing in battle are not fodder for political garbage speak.

Get your heads together and figure out how to  honor both the living and dead troops that are fighting for your ability to cartoon around the Internet.

By the way mexico. The troop with-drawls that were promised are in place and in a accelerated fashion.  From Iraq. I know you are upset that America wasn't attacked as soon as Bush announced his troop with-drawl time table.  But hey. There are always earthquakes and hurricanes that could bring down the Obama regime.

"Get your heads together and figure out how to  honor both the living and dead troops that are fighting for your ability to cartoon around the Internet."

That's pretty much what the right asked when Bush was being crucified for troop loss.  I guess loss is OK when it's a war you approve of.

Get Intel back on the ground and stop relying on satellites to peek in caves.  This isn't a smart bomb war.

I think that was a good point Nancy, i totally agree.

Glad to see Owebama is keeping to the troop withdrawl schedule set out by Bush.

10 troops dieing in battle are not fodder for political garbage speak.

But I guess 4000 troops dieing in battle is fodder for political garbage speak.  I think a good way to honour our servicemen is to give them what their commanders ask, or else get them completely out.  But Owebama is too busy dicking around with late night TV promos to give a rats colon about the troops. Is that how Owebama respects the troops?  When was the last time he was in Iraq or Afghanistan??

Commanders never get what they want.  Petraeus lobbied for about 150,000 more troops than what we got at the outset of the war.  CINCs should try to support troops on the ground and give them what they need.  At level, their is a lot of politics abd broader security issues to consider.  As I'm alwsy told on my level, Afghanistan is just a "piece of the pie".  I guess the new administration is trying to focus in on whatever their strategy will be.  I'm interested to hear what it is. 

Nancy, I'm voting you for President.

Kinda sounds like whats happening over there is the same thing that has happened years ago in South East Asia...more troops--more troops--and more troops...just leads to more deaths--are we REALLY going to win this one???

That is a good question to ask.  I honestly don't think that was asked by the last administration.  It was an assumption in starting the war with no strategic endstate only to change the overall mission to fit contemporary politics.  The belief was that we had so much firepower and manpower that it would be a matter of months.  Nancy is right about all the gadgetry we have doesn't replace troops on the ground.

It would be nice to go into a war and feel their is an actual endstate to it all.  Have we ever had one?  WWII and Revolutionary Wars were pretty clear in what was needed to declare victory.  Every other war has been a little murky in how they end.

I was talking to a Military historian about two months ago and he feels that the problem with our military strategy is that we prepare for war against enemies we want to fight.  This Al-Qaeda insurgency forced us to redo our military doctrine and strategy.  We were tought to fight on a linear battlefield against auniformed enemy in woodland terrain only to fight against an ununiformed enemy in urban terrain on a non-linear battlefield.  Not only did we fight with changing missions but had to lern a new way to fight on the fly.  

I was not trained to fight this way when I enlisted in 1998.  We were still using Cold War tactics. 

These people are fluid---they can move their command from Pakastan to Somalia anytime--does this mean we go into Somalia and fight a war over there too....

There is no front in todays warfare--the enemy walks freely around the world..

I think we could protect the American front (without a DHS) if we weren't stretched so much.

You know how I know that we won't win this....when politics gets involved with warfare..( from Korea to today )...when was our last WIN...

That's the structure of the military, Ling.  The military answers to politicians.  That's why it only makes sense to get into wars can be logically justified to the public.  Using cliches like "freedom isn't free", retention bonuses, and wearing yellow ribbons only goes so far.  That is little solace to someone losing a loved one.  You have to have moral and political credibility when fighting wars.  Politics has its place, we don't want a police state, but it should not arbitrarilly put American lives at risk when fighting these wars..

If establishing a "Democratic" system in Iraq and Afghanistan is the goal we will probably never win either war. These people have been fighting each other for thousands of years. A stable government is going to be almost impossible to accomplish. The tribal system will be very hard to overcome. I don't have the answer. I wish I did.

Their idea of Democracy is probably different from ours.  We should just be happy with a a stable somewhat equitable government.

One problem is that both governments are corrupt.  I doubt is a government could be established that would not be. The tribal attitude is that anything goes if it helps US.

Spam Code - SHITS, I kid you not!

I truly think there should be a complete re-evaluation of this Afghanistan situation. To the best of my knowledge we went in there because that was where OBL was and the Taliban (who was running the country) would not turn him over to us. Now, outside of harboring OBL and be in sympathy with Al Qaida, I don't really know what argument we have with the Taliban. 

So now, eight years later, we are over there defending a regime we put in against the Taliban. We have no idea where OBL is and we really don't seem to care. Didn't we learn anything in Vietnam? This is a situation we CANNOT WIN, unless we want to move the goalposts and define victory as something else.

I never got above Cpl., but like most grunts, I know what I would do if I was in charge. Pull back, train the hell out of the locals and get the hell out of Dodge as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I will tell you something: There is nothing - nothing - more miserable than seeing your fellow soldiers getting blown all to hell for people who could care less about you or your country.

This is a situation we CANNOT WIN, unless we want to move the goalposts and define victory as something else.

That already happened several times.  It's happening again as we speak.

We will never win as long as the commander in chief is afraid of victory..

Ron, this news makes me so mad I can't see straight.  Every time I hear about something like that, which is oftener and oftener these days, my blood begins to boil.  To think that those cave-dwellers over there, fighting with the equivalent of rocks and swords (comparatively speaking), can blow up our people makes me blow my stack. 

I keep thinking about Hillary Clinton.  In it to win it.  Well, we're not Hillary, but can't we be in it to win it, too?  I'm sick and tired of holding back.  Either do the job or come the heck home.  I'm getting to feel like those protesters in 1968.  A little late, maybe, but so what?  Am I by myself thinking like this?  And by the way I don't give a rat's toe about the politics either here or there.  This is about a war we seem to be fighting, and I want to know why we're not in it to win it.

I know...pull back ALL TROOPS....send in " THE SPECIAL " and make them GLOW BLUE in the dark....then it's ' Miller Time '....

What's the sense of having nukes IF you're not going to use them---IF they had them..you KNOW what they would do with them...

Alicen, I'm always amused by people like you, who have lived safe in your little world, never hearing the roar of shells, becoming all jingoistic and militant about combat. Do you have the foggiest concept of what WINNING means in Afghanistan? If you do, please share it, because no one else seems to know. 

Ling, Nuke 'em all, that's the ticket. But hey, while we're at it, we'd better get every Muslim in the world, 'cause there'll be one or two left that will concentrate on payback.

Pogo, everyone put on their "freedom isn't free" bumper stickers and tied yellow ribbons around the tree.  Now the we have a different administration and serious economic problems.  It's real to some people now (Would Dan Rather be willng to put on a uniform now?).  It's no longer a cute slogan and a flag on your lapel.  I'm glad people are engaging and asking real questions. 

The 9/11 Kool-Aid got us in this mess.