We, meaning the countries of the civilized world, should be sending swarms of spies and gorillas of our own into those mountains, not ramping up a war that we're never going to win. This "action" is to help a country establish a civilized political system in a country that's never successfully had one. This war is as unwinnable as the Iraq war, perhaps even more as its history is completely tribal when some country isn't trying to conquer it.

We need to fight terrorism with the same tactics that terrorists use, not with occupying forces.

This centrist action by Obama will not please the lunatic fringe of the republican party (unless we annex the country as part of the US) and it will only alienate, over time those in the middle.

Big mistake...I agree with Senator Collins. (I wonder what she would have said if he had simply pulled out, would she have supported that action?)

Taliban-approved editorial...they probably couldn't have written it better.

Hey Monroe, how many tours of duty have you completed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Maine is blessed to have such an expert in residence. Perhaps you and the crack BDN editorial staff can do some adjunct teaching at Army War College and straighten out those military leaders who don't know anything. Or perhaps you get on SECDEF's calendar and provide these relevations to him.

People that do not understand History are doomed to repeat it.

accuratereporting wrote:

"Perhaps you and the crack BDN editorial staff can do some adjunct teaching at Army War College and straighten out those military leaders who don't know anything."

Maybe someone with a memory longer than 15 minutes should do "some teaching"

We fought in Vietnam; No victory

We fought in Nicaragua; The opposition won

We assassinated the duly elected President of Chile and gave then 20 years of the brutal dictator Pinochet.

We got our asses blasted out of Lebanon.

We went into Iraq to "liberate Kuwait" for a monarch best known for having solid gold bathroom fixtures. We expended the lives of US service people while Kuwait's youth spent the war in Egypt's nightclubs.

We got kicked out of Somalia.

We have been unable to "stabilize" Iraq in almost twice the time it took us to win WW II.

Genghis Khan, The Romans, The Greeks, The Syrians, The Persians, The Ottomans, The British, and the Soviets were unable to conquer Afghanistan. History is worth a look before we make yet another mistake.

One might also ask, that if the reason for this war was to redress the atrocity of 9/11, why are we here? of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi, 2 were Yemanese, one was Palestinian, and one was Egyptian. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and the planners included German and British nationals. Osama Bin Laden is believed to be in Pakistan. The link between the Taliban and al-Qa'ida is tenuous at best.

It is a shame that with our fantastic new communications devises that we can't yet pass on some reality.

What we need is some leaders with enough balls to make use of B-2 bombers and some tactical nuclear weapons ....

As long as the politicians are in charge of the wars, we will lose.

EJ; Whom do you think should be "in charge" of the wars?

As long as "we the people" feel no personal pain from wars, they will continue unabated. Every war should be fought with money collected from the citizens. Borrowing money for war is like charging your weekly expenses and paying them off long term.

Every war is fought by money provided by the people through taxes. Trouble is, the 40% or so that don't pay taxes feel no pain or discomfort, with the exception of those that have loved ones in the war. And this 40% or so will be exempt from this "war tax". We don't need any more taxes. In fact, we need to implement the fair tax and even the playing field. Then we need to force the government to cut back on entitlements and freebies that are only in place to keep them in office. But, that's another book or three.

As for who should be in charge of wars, the American military has never lost a war, as long as the politicians kept their noses out of it.

The Revolutionary was conceived, fought and managed by "politicians" So was the war of 1912, and the many many wars against the native people. The civil war was disguised as something it was not by Northern politicians. The Spanish American war was managed and sold to the public by politicians. The first world war was pushed into public favor by politicians against the tide of opposition from the US people. ditto the second world war which began with lend lease, and ended with Truman dropping the bombs on Japan.

Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman were all politicians, but so too Westmorland. General David Petraeus General McChrystal and many of the other top brass. You have to play the political game to get to the top in the Military.

In fact, every war (lately) has been fought using borrowed money. If the taxpayers had to pay the true cost of war up front, there would be far fewer of them. Currently China, India, and Indonesia are financing our adventures abroad.

My point is (since you seem to have missed it) The people carrying the guns into battle should not be the only folks making sacrifices. The public should either back our endeavors with cash, Stateside efforts, or rationing. This country has won every war that politicians have sold them successfully. lately these silver-mouthed devils seem to have a bit of trouble making the public aware of the need to fight.

Every war the United States has fought, up to and including the Korean War, was fought by the generals and admirals in the field. The only thing the politicians did was allow the war and fund it. They were not fought by the politicians, although it would be great to get a few of them out there on the front lines.

EJ Although history has clouded this fact (Greatest generation and all) Both the first and Second World Wars were begun without public support. In the case Of WW II, Roosevelt almost singlehandedly pulled the US public into this war. Finally at its end, Truman (as commander in chief) made the decision to drop the two atomic bombs on japan.

As for Korea, there was never a more politicized war. Truman and MacArthur fought like a cat and a dog. MacArthur felt that we (at the end of WW II) should have crossed the Yalow River and proceeded into China. Truman vetoed that. MacArthur wanted to be president, and Truman vetoed that too by firing Mac Arthur and ending his political aspirations, as well as his military career.

IMHO was is ALWAYS political, sometimes for the good, often not.

Just because the politicians made the right decision on these matters does not make them any less political.

Obama argues that he is doing the same thing with Afghanistan pulling an unwilling public into a necessary war.. I personally disagree, but that is his position.

Obama has the lowest approval rating for this early in a Presidential career than any other President since they started approval ratings.....

Just figured you guys would like to know.....

War definitely doesn’t make a President look good.

Tele,

You know the plan. He is hoping pulling them out just before the next election will carry him to another term. He does not have to be popular now, only when he runs again. Us Americans have short memories, if he pulled them out now, we would have forgotten it come time for the next election. That does not do him any good.

Harry - I'll give it to you on the Korean conflict, but as for WWI and WWII, we may have been pulled in, but the politicians did not direct the troops, the generals and admirals did. But, in that day, there were enough politicians that had served in uniform to know who should be in charge. That is no longer the case. I believe that military service should be required for everyone that serves in Congress or the White House. Then they would have a better understanding of what it means to be an American. A good stint in uniform will beat the socialist out of just about anyone.