Should the President Wait For the Afghanistan Election Runoff Before Making A Decision About Adding Troops?

Yes, it took Bush 4 long months to start the surge in Iraq-
and the Awakening actually was responsible for the "success" of the surge.

Even McCrystal cautions and advocates that Obama take his time and make the right decisions.

You send the troops now because they're needed to keep the troops already there safe. The generals on the ground know what's needed more than clowns in Washington.

Does Obama want to be a leader or follower?

If he wants to lead then, damnit, lead!!

john kerry gives advice about the war in afg. now thats rich. he drove a boat in vietnam and made up medals for himself then went to DC and through them on the ground. I would say that general mccrystal has a better grasp on the situation at hand and maybe obama should listen to his generals. oh wait he's only talked to him twice since becoming president. maybe we should send hillary to afg. she went to bosnia once and got shot at by a sniper. oh wait that was a lie. hmmm maybe we should ask acorn. we in the military are shocked at how our requests for more troops is being treated by this admin. and the rift between the military and obama keeps getting worse by the minute.

We rushed to war twice in the last 8 years. The single biggest reason for the trouble we are in today is that there was no plan, no exit strategy. How many lives were lost to bad or absent planning over the last 8 years? Taking the time to analyze the situation and knowing what our objectives are will clarify what needs to be done to accomplish our objectives.

we are already at war in afg. and we do have plan. if i remember correctly the surge worked in iraq. indecision gets people killed. making a decision based on whats popular to your politcal base gets even more people killed. i am currently on my 4th tour here in afg. and yes some extra help is needed. a new president who has some balls wouldnt hurt either.

List what we accomplished in Iraq.

a new increasingly stable country for which to keep iran at bay or maybe even launch a campaign into and finish off the attoyallahs once and for all and end this little secret war that we have been having with them that started in 1979. should i keep going? i have to warn you ive been doing this war thing now for 18 1/2 years now and im pretty knowledgable on the subject of foriegn internal defense missions/ unconventional war and why things are why they are in the world. sorry if my reply seems hostile i was up all night helping taliban insurgents on there way to paradise.

Good of you to find time for SH after all that killing.

Feel free to ask your friends in the military why they joined after 9/11. I'm not bashing, I just don't like misleading information.

Bush never claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 911. This is not even news. If you could find a link that showed bush claiming that Iraq was involved in 911, then that would be news. Not only that, it would have been played daily on MSNBC during the 2004 and 2008 elections.

We went to war with Iraq because we were already at war with them since 1991 (there was a cease fire, not end of war, that was broken by Iraq), because president Clinton changed the US policy in 1998 to one of regime change in Iraq (Bush the senior did not call for direct regime change), because since we began enforcing the UN's no fly zone, they had been firing rockets at our jets on a nearly daily basis, because he refused multiple requests to allow UN inspectors to verify the status of his UN verified weapons of mass destruction. Amongst many other things, that is why there was overwhelming Congressional approval to use force to remove Sadam.

I'm not sure what your point is in bringing the only nationally elected form KKK member (actually Byrd was a Klan recruiter) into the conversation. I didn"t say the "KKK" was not against the war. I said George Bush never claimed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. It was never used as a reason for the war.

Byrd appears to agree that the senate knew before it voted that Bush was clearly not making an argument for a link between Iraq and 9/11 . This was just prior to their voting overwhelmingly to support using force to remove Sadam.

Next time you post a video try to summarize it a bit in text so that those who don't want to waist time listening for the only former Klan member holding national office don't have to.

Also I will assume the best of you and that you didn't know you are using a former Klan member to make your point (though don't see where this makes any point at all on your side)..

Why don't the Democrats simply show a bit of taste and ask that no-Klansmen run on their ticket. This guy should be a man without a party.

http://ivaw.org/faq
And one more thing...I don't judge someone for what they did in their past...

You really should. It is the best indicator of who they really are.

And for anyone who ever chose, as an adult, to become a member of the KKK and then is active to the point that they are promoted and become a recruiter as well, has made my list of the unqualified to share their opinion with others. There is a small list of things you can do, most of them criminal, that will get you on that list and that is definitely one.

Also, if you don't judge people by what they have done then why would you post a video of them talking? That's just something they did once.

"Also, if you don't judge people by what they have done then why would you post a video of them talking? That's just something they did once."
One of the most childish responses I have ever seen.

OK, I'm really curious. If you "don't judge people by what they have done" then how do you judge people? By what they say? By how they look? I give up.

"I don't judge someone for what they did in their past..."

If the surge "worked" in Iraq, why are we still there?

Besides, the President will be sending troops, it's just being determined how many and what the strategy will be. Or would you rather he "sin in haste and repent at leisure"??

Just because it worked is no reason to leave over night. These are unrelated statements. You may as well ask "if you like cake so much, why do we still have fruit?"

What it does mean is that when we leave, we will leave behind a safe, secure country whose government likely won't return to killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens soon.

Your example about cake is not parallel at all. What is your definition of "worked" regarding the surge? What is the objective in Iraq? Do we stay there forever to make sure they don't slip back to their "old ways"? And, if so, why do we have to cram 'democracy' down their throats if they have no interest in fighting for it, defending it, maintaining it themselves?

we are in control of one country where there were active terrorist bases aiming their arrows at us

we are in control of another country whose leader hated us more than anything else in the world and was in position to cause us much harm by supplying terrorists once the sanctions eased and maybe before

there were no significant attacks on us soil during those eight years but not for the lack of them trying

i will wager that we will have significant attacks on american soil during the appeasement oriented reign of obama

i would rather be feared and hated by the islamic jihadists than to be despised by them

What countries are we "in control of"? You believe that shaking our fist and threatening our might to the world advances our place in the world? If that's so, why were we so despised by the world during the Bush admin? Why were my European friends mocking us for our choice of President then? Why are countries more willing to align with us now? NOBODY likes a bully.

A side note: one attack planned on the US has already been averted under the Obama admin.

we are in control of iraq and afghanistan until or if we choose to leave; they are killing more of each other than our troops which seems to be the new standard amongst muslims

i feel proud to feel despised by the french; why do you not move there to live with your effete european friends where i am sure will feel more at ease

i do not care to advance ourselves and win friends with theocracies and dictatorships; i would rather be feared and respected theocracies and dictatorships

congrats to obama for averting an attack but are you sure the sting was not set up by during the bush admin: only 7 1/2 years to go regardless

You're a piece of work. We are far from 'in control' of either country. You need to get over the view that we rule the world.

One thing I have to say about my 'effete' european friends: they have the ability to distinguish between the people who live in a country and the government of that country, quite unlike you. My friends hardly qualify as effete. They are workers just like I have been my whole life. Just regular folks. I just feel fortunate to have populated my circle of friends with people from many cultures and from many places in the world. It really enriches life.

If you wish to be a bully so that you will be feared, fine, do that. But do not ever confuse that with respect. Everyone hates an bully and will wait in watch for the day they can retaliate. I'd rather our country not be their target. The world is big enough for people of differing faiths and governments to coexist.

And the icing on the cake: you on the right wanted Obama to take ownership of the mess Bush left him from day one. But now you want to credit Bush with averting the attack under the Obama admin? That would be hysterically funny if it weren't so typical of the twisted thinking on the right.

Next time your effete, flaccid, and emasculated European friends need someone to save them, let them save each other.

I look to our new European friends that still have their balls left like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, and the Ukraine.

I do wish to be a bully when it comes to bin Laden and the tens of millions of Musilms would admire and follow him. If you do want to fight bin Laden and his al Qaeda, you are a coward and wimp. Go live in Spain where the bull has been gelded.

You libs blamed everything wrong in the world on Bush for eight years. I reckon we will return the favor. Thank you very much.

Oh, dear. You do truly have penis issues, don't you? Well, I can't speak to Bush's sexual prowess, but he won't win any awards for his mental prowess.

I've got two young friends serving there now. They need help now, not later. Pres. Obama needs to do his job.

I suppose we should rush in with more troops and expose them to harm as well? Your young friends need support, yes, but they also need a plan and a strategy.

The surge worked in Iraq; the principles can apply in Afghanistan. The ROEs need to be changed as well. When guys die because they are not permitted to defend themselves, something is very wrong.

Please explain how the surge 'WORKED'. What worked? What has been resolved? If we leave today, will Iraq blossom into an American-inspired democracy? Will our soldiers be safe? Will the civilians be safe? Tell me please, what has changed.

Iraq is FAR safer since the surge than it was before. And who said anything about leaving today? Iraq still needs US assistance for awhile.

I think he should wait, then make a well informed decision.

Should we really wait another 6 to 8 weeks before telling our top generals what the strategy will be? How many lives will be lost by the indecision?

This is typical of the hurry up, gamble everything, but do nothing policies of this president.

"Health care reform (any reform) must pass by the end of August because people are dieing every day." But it doesn't matter that it doesn't kick in until 2013? What people will stop dieing just because the bill is passed? If that is true why don't we make it kick in in 2040?

How many lives have been lost over the last years BECAUSE there was no plan and no strategy? Now you want to send more to die in a big hurry, because when troops are at risk, you want to put more troops at risk without a plan? After 8 years of loss of life, a few additional weeks to get it right will ultimately save lives.

The health care issue has no bearing on this whatsoever. We have already postponed it for decades. And because it will take years to implement, the sooner it's passed, the better.

You honestly believe there is no plan? You must be so unfamiliar with the way the military works to believe that. The generals who decided they need more troops to shut down the uprising definitely have a plan.

I don't think Barak will have a better plan in all based on his background of being a community organizer.
Waiting 6 to 8 weeks for an election is not a plan. Plans don't arrive with the results of a foreign election. They come from people who have spent their lives planning and learning how to plan military operations.

Now hold on, in you previous post, you said "Should we really wait another 6 to 8 weeks before telling our top generals what the strategy will be?" And now you say "You honestly believe there is no plan?" Having a plan of attack is not a strategy for war. The biggest failure under Bush was the rush to war without a strategy on how to end it. Just "bang, bang, shoot 'em up". I realize you cons all love war because it makes you feel powerful. Good for you. I'm sure you get a rush from it. But there are people dying, and putting more military out there to die is not worth it unless there is a clear strategy on the war. It's just war for it's own sake. By the way, where was all your bitching when Bush basically ignored the Afg. war for 8 years while our soldiers died?

Your sarcasm about the President's background was juvenile. We have not had a military man as President since Eisenhower. Somehow they all managed to surround themselves with knowledgeable military advisers, just as Obama has. A President does not have to have intimate knowledge of every aspect of governance to lead, he needs only to surround himself with smart people who have the specialized knowledge, listen to them, think it thru, then make decisions.

The 6-8 week delay is not because the administration wants to develop a plan. It is to wait for their election. No plan involved.

Yes Obama does have some intelligent military advisers, and they are asking for more troops now. If you override your generals you better have a good plan that is something other than "let's wait".

If your military advisers haven't already developed a plan, given that they have known about this issue since before Obama took office, then it is time to fire them and get new advisers. If Obama had fired is top military advisers, hired new ones and said we will give these guys a few weeks to develop a plan then that would be understandable.

Also, Kennedy and Bush senior both had very strong military backgrounds, and both are post Eisenhower. If you have to be a general to be a military man then by your standard Eisenhower is the first military man since Grant.

Eisenhower was career military, that's the point I was trying to make.

But my question to you is WHY was it okay for Bush to allow the war in Afghanistan to languish for 7 years with minimal troops? Why has this war even reached this point where now, suddenly, we are desperate to get 40,000 more troops there? Where was this emergency for the last 8 years? Haven't our troops been dying over there for all this time, or did that just start when Obama became the Prez? Now you are faulting Obama because he wants a cautious, well-thought-out plan? How many lives did Bush's rush to war cost our country under his command?