The so called war in Afghanistan is seriously taking up a lot of U.S. resources. What`s worse is that the government still telling the U.S. citizens that it is countering terrorism. It is laughable to say such things when you still have soldiers dying. The insurgence use cheap technology to fight and yet they have been effective. While the U.S. military gets millions of dollars in funding for using sophisticated equipment and yet the so called war still goes on with casualties.

Recently, there is also a change in command. Now General Petraeus is going to be in charge of the Afghan war. Just because the Petraues has experience during Iraq war does not mean he is going to be successful in Afghan. Remember that during the Iraq war the Political cabinet was very different. If you ask me the Iraq war was a success because of Colin Powell. The questions are simple. How is it that the Afghan war going to be won when there is no proper cooperation among politicians and military officials? How are they going to win the war if they can`t even resolve their own nation issues?

Whenever the news comes on about Afghan war, we would hear some spokesman talking about how some Taliban leader was killed or Al Qaeda fleeing the region. Are there only 2 militant or terrorist groups in Afghanistan? So how many are there for real? Firstly, we need to know that Afghanistan is pretty much controlled by 100s of different factions. Each of this faction more or less preaches Islam a little differently. Unlike Taliban or Al Qaeda these groups are that very well organized. So what the U.S. government did was simply win them over by paying them. Yes, paying them with your money. The money that could be used to make people`s life better is being wasted on militants. Why they pay? To make sure that the U.S. convoy can pass through without any problems. Sometimes you got to wonder whether anything can be achieved with such leaders.

Let`s go back to the time when Russia occupied Afghanistan. Russian military did commit war crimes but their intentions were in the right place. During this the U.S. gave a lot of weapons and resources to the Afghans. Currently, the weapons that were given than is being used against the U.S. troops now. Did the U.S. learn from this? It is not easy to accept mistakes but it is wise and smart to do so. Even now Afghanistan`s government is still dependent on the U.S.. Yet President Obama says that his administration will be able to start pulling troops by July 2011.

In the first place why Afghanistan? The fact is important terrorist or militant leaders are hiding out in countries like Pakistan, Yemen or even Lebanon. Afghanistan does harbor terrorist as well as having a lucrative poppy plant production which has funded many factions. On the other hand does the U.S. government need to focus so much on Afghanistan? At the end, so many things could have been to improve the economics and the lives of many people. So think about it….

Related Videos

When it comes to national security, nothing is as good as to see the current Vice President taking on the former. Both have taken radical paths and shape our country in their reign of “power”, (they should not be having any power according to our constitution other than to break a tie in the Senate).

I am going to be unabashed and state that I am never in the same boat with VP Cheney when it comes to this. To me, he is an absolute failure when it comes to national security. Whilst, it could be President Bush that should ultimately get most of the blame, it is VP Cheney that still is backing the disastrous policies of the last administration and many would still claim that a lot of those orders would go all the way up to VP Dick Cheney.

The rot of our national Security seems to come from the fact that our Vice President never seems to know what military protocols are. He has got no idea at all and it is he that is having a “tenuous relationship with reality”.

For example, he thinks that the only way we can get intelligence out of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is by torture, or his excuse of a term, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. It is from this that “intelligence” was gained that led to the Iraq war where thousands of our troops died. So doesn’t that prove that that those techniques do not work?

He often claims that President Obama is taking away methods to interrogate terrorists in a ticking time bomb situation. Well, had he had served the army instead of chickening out, he would have known what the rules of Engagement are. If there is any justified perception of hostility, action can be taken. So he is wrong again on that.

Even if he thinks that perverse logic is true, why need to hold them for so many years. Why not execute them for their crimes already? Why is it that we are paying Al Qaeda personnel to be given food for so many years? Does he not know that by keeping them in for so long risks hostage situations in the future demanding their releases? (E.g. Recently, Israel released hundreds of prisoners in return for mere proof that one of their soldier is alive).

Now coming to VP Bide. Should he have said that another 9/11 would not be likely? He better do! We never want to hear that another 9/11 is inevitable! However, more important is his actions rather than his words. We had a Christmas miracle with the “underwear bomber”. That is the most that we should tolerate.

Lastly, I am very pleased that the current administration is going after Al Qaeda and is having some good results. But at the end of the day, America wants Osama bin Laden’s head. With his head, we can have the symbolic victory that the world is looking for. So until then, we are not there yet…

The Iraq War Inquiry Report is an investigation that is going on right now in the UK. It is a huge report that is trying to learn lessons that led to the Iraq War. Whilst this is just an inquiry, would it mean that British Courts would have the right to charge President Bush and other members based on the findings of this report?

This inquiry is really taking the cake. First, there is the notion that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he was still certain that he did a right thing to go to war despite there being no weapons of mass destruction! Wow! While in think that it is an awfully dim of him to say that and that he is just covering his own behind, you got to admit that he has some balls for saying what he said!

Secondly, this inquiry has access to so many reports that are hidden from the media and the public. In other words, they would have more access to the facts than most of us! I really am amazed that this is allowed! How can a system be worthy of the people’s trust if it is done in the shadows? Do they really think that a website is sufficient?

Next is the slip and the hints given by the Inquiry members. There is the hint given out that British officials knew that President Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless of there being full compliance of UN weapon inspectors. What the hell? I do believe that this is true, but that does not mean that it is. Where are the dots that drew this conclusions? Again, can they please show this evidence, please!

Coming back to the hypothetical question that I raised; I would be very uncomfortable that the foreign courts have the ability to put our President or ex-Presidents on trial for acts they committed. This could be open to abuse in the future. What is this was Iran or Libya that tried our President in absentia? Are we going to sit down on our laurels then?

Lets face it. The only reason that this can be a consideration is because President Bush was a pathetic and a failure of a President. The world hated him and many Americans do too. Why did they not launch investigations into whether President Clinton should have gone to jail for lying or whether President Reagan be charged for the Iran Contra affair? Because those Presidents were well loved by the American people.

I do understand the other end of the argument too. I do get it that we should charge people like former Liberian President Charles Taylor and I fully support Nuremberg style cases; but I still feel that there should be a distance. Maybe, only the international body should have the right to bear down on these kinds of special cases?

To end it off, there is no point of having an inquiry when we are not going to learn from it. We still have not learn we cannot get intelligence by torture! It was from Guantanamo Bay that the “intelligence” of WMD came about. Had we allowed the our Intelligence agencies to do their jobs the way they normally do, thousands of our troops would have been alive today!

President Obama is going to send 30 000 more troops to Afghanistan. This is something that I support and have long stated so. However, the part about the deadline is something that confuses me. Is it the goal of the President to exit in 18 months like we did in the surge, or are we going to have to close shop within 18 months?
This is something that is rather complicating as the two scenarios have such different outcomes despite appearing to be similar. If we are going to get the hell out in 18 month regardless of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, we are in trouble.

The President is going to allow, in his words, “ an unacceptable risk”, to be potentially around in 18 months. That would render all the blood and sacrifice of our troops in the next 18 months as fruitless.If he does that, he is failing America in a very fundamental way.

If this is the case, there is really no hope of extending the stay beyond 2012. If the troops are to draw down by July 2011; it would take 6-10 months for all of them to come home. The added incentive would be that President Obama would be viewed as the person who have brought back all the troops home, something that would go down well with his far left base.

On the other hand, if the President hopes to achieve all goals in 18 months, then that would be a good thing. We would only leave when our objectives in Afghanistan are met. That is a world away from leaving Afghanistan at a certain date by any means necessary.

As Iraq has shown us, it is very possible that we can meet our objectives in 18 months. If we could do it in Iraq, we can do it Afghanistan. This would be something very positive and something that I would support. I also like the idea of a very speedy troop surge. That is something that would be a logistical headache to the Officers and the NCOs, but I think it would boost the troop morale on the ground.

Now I do not know which one of those scenarios is right. The Republicans are claiming that the first scenario is right, while the Democrats are claiming that the second is. The President, in his speech yesterday, went both ways. Is he undecided? I wonder…

There is also the thing about the price of the war. The President has always promised that he would do everything in a deficit neutral manner. So how is he goi9ng to pay for the at least $30 billion that this war would cost? Is he going to go down the path of President Bush and leave the next generation with a $1 trillion dollar war burden? I hope he takes Governor Jesse Ventura idea seriously about a war tax.

I would also want to see do NATO her fair share of work. It is not only the United States that has suffered attacks that were being carried out by Al Qaeda which is supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I want to see that they contribute their very small share of 5000 men. I also hope that they go in with the desire to fight and not just be peace keepers, like they have done so many times.

Related articles by Zemanta

• West Point Reax (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Liveblogging the President’s Afghanistan Speech (seminal.firedoglake.com)
• The Plan for Afghanistan (mountainrunner.us)
• Obama’s West Point Speech: Did He Convince You? (alan.com)
• Military Memo: Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear (nytimes.com)
• You: Military Memo: Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear (nytimes.com)
• Security Adviser Calls Troop Increase McChrystal’s Opinion (nytimes.com)
• Obama’s tricky message on Afghanistan (tech.bl0x.info)
• Live Blog of the President’s Speech No. 2 (dailykos.com)
• An expert’s view on Afghanistan strategy talks (cnn.com)

After the open demands of General McChrystal was made before the whole world, and his apparent “talk” with President Obama later, there are rumors the US might actually take troops our of Afghanistan. There was also talk of a plan by Vice President Joe Biden, which involved more special operations and drones rather than soldiers.

I get the fact that the President is delaying this so as weigh the options. I do not think that it shows indecision, I think that it shows intelligence. If only we had this before we entered Iraq in 2003! So, I think that we should give him the time to think. I fully support him on that.

What I do not agree with is the weak-knee Liberals’ idea this is to cut and run from Afghanistan. I think that it would be the gravest error since Vietnam should we just leave Afghanistan. Granted, there are some conservatives that are also supporting this, but this is an issue that is very much discussed by the far left in America.

This is not Vietnam. Firstly, it is a legal war. We did not go out and attack them, Al Qaeda declared war on us! Vietnam was not the same. We have an obligation to finish the terrorists that are responsible for the death of thousands of our citizens’ lives. Vietnam had nothing like that. So please stop comparing this war with that of Vietnam!

Yes, the surge worked in Iraq. Would a surge in Afghanistan work like it did in Iraq? Is it the best method or the only method? I really do not know. I was not an Officer in the army. But my Army experience tell me that, the surge is a tactic that gives us a chance that a pull out would not.

What I know is that sending in drones and special operations alone just would not work. We still need the boots to hit the ground. Ask any soldier; and they would tell you that to get Al Qaeda, you still need the infantry (Army). You cannot just use the special forces. The Vice President’s plan is just not feasible.

So far, we have Press Secretary saying moments ago that the President would not leave Afghanistan. That is something that I liked. However, he was still brushing away comments relating to the troop surge and General McChrystal.

Come on America! Lets finish this job. We have been killing lots and lots of terrorists and lets finish Al Qaeda! There were Senators that said that there were only 100 Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. Can’t we deal with that? Can’t we finish off 100 people? Can’t we secure Afghanistan? Why is it that we can work out Iraq, but not Afghanistan?

Please President Obama, lets kill the terrorists and finish the job. It is only then that we should leave. We should be incorporating the “Yes We Can” spirit that got the President elected. This is also part of the job description of President Obama : to keep our country safe.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Army Head Supports Afghanistan Forces Boost (news.sky.com)
• Close quarters (news.bbc.co.uk)
• U.S. Afghanistan strategy under fire (nationalpost.com)
• The class that would not quit (timesunion.com)
• An expert’s view on Afghanistan strategy talks (cnn.com)
• Obama’s Kennedy moment on Afghanistan (guardian.co.uk)
• Sources: U.S. eyes more drone hits on terror havens (ctv.ca)
• Political scientists report drop in US standing (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Security Adviser Calls Troop Increase McChrystal’s Opinion (nytimes.com)
• Learning lessons (news.bbc.co.uk)
• “Nicole Richie Banged Up in Car Accident” and related posts (tmz.com)
• “Hotmail phishing attack confirmed, 20,000 accounts in total” and related posts (neowin.net)
• “Adobe Shows Off Flash Apps For iPhone. Yes, You Read That Right.” and related posts (techcrunch.com)
• “Oil States Dumping Dollar as Currency for Trading Oil” and related posts (yidwithlid.blogspot.com)
• “David Letterman Apologizes To His Wife On-Air” and related posts (perezhilton.com)
• Obama to hold meeting on Afghan war (cnn.com)
• Robert Gates calls for calm after public row over Afghanistan troops (telegraph.co.uk)
• “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart.” (althouse.blogspot.com)