I would agree that if we’re talking about sending in traditional troops to do heavy battle, then perhaps the surge is not warranted. However, if the goal is to work with the people on projects and build relations with them, then more troops means more contacts and more projects that can be done jointly. I think the writer may have some good points to make, but I’m not convinced her overall conclusion is spot on.
This woman has mad ten tours of Afghanistan. She should know more than I do. I still note that leftist politicians make tours too, and they seldom get it right.
I just haven't been very impressed with him in his first week. He has gotten a lot of things done, and I don't think I've agreed with any of them. And he sure isn't leading according to his "bipartisan" stuff about "listening to those who disagree with me."
I think the problem is that with President Bush, we could be 100% certain, that whatever he did, it was what he considered in the best interest in the country, NOT for political reasons, and he made those decisions based on the best available information at the time.
In case of Obama, I don’t think we can trust him to make his decisions based on what’s best for the country. If he has any concern for the country, instead of the terrorists, he would not have dismantled the interrogation techniques used on TERRORISTS PLANNING TO ATTACK US.
Obama is making this decision for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but did not tell us whether the commanders in the field are supporting it, and exactly what does it entail. I find that very suspicious, that he made his decision “for show” and to take troops out of Iraq prematurely.