Afghanistan, Afghanistan, what’s a President to do? All his options are bad ones. Raise the troop levels and give the Taliban a run for it’s money? For what? To support a corrupt aristocracy? Bad idea. So should he keep the troop levels the same? That just places the soldiers already there in harm’s way, and for no good purpose whatsoever. So should Obama withdraw? Then after the Taliban win, Al Qaeda will be free set up shop and plot. You can be sure that Obama will be blamed for anything they do, and called a coward for running away from a fight. The people taunting Obama will be the same crowd currently faulting him for supporting a nation that won’t lift a finger to help itself.
It’s clear why the Republicans sent up Mr. Three Time Loser and The Lipstick Queen into that Dog-of-a-Fight in 2008. The winner gets to drown cleaning up various Bush-era quagmires, while everyone else stands aside and watches the funny President wave his arms and pitch pails of water over the side.Janet Leigh-Janet Leigh
An AP article yesterday stated that Obama’s hesitancy on Afghan war build-up implies weakness. I wish world leaders had more of that kind of weakness. Clearly, President Obama does not want to send soldiers into harm’s way without a clear goal, a solid plan, and an exit strategy, three aspects sorely missing from President Bush’s military ventures. I know that we Americans are used to Presidents that play cowboy, that say things like “Bring ’em on” and “Mission Accomplished” without a second thought, Presidents who send Americans into battle on falsified weapons reports. But it seems like our current President understands that you don’t send soldiers into battle without first nailing down what we’re supposed to be doing, and why. So hats off to Obama’s “hesitation.” Soldiers are human beings, not chess pieces. It’s about time we get a President who understands that.-Mark Spivey