[wideawake]

Either way, the LBJ equivalent for Afghanistan is not Obama. It's Bush. And that's a hard thing to say

LBJ was going to implement a surge in Vietnam, but then gave into political pressure and caved, sending in far fewer men than those in field command thought necessary.

In contrast, President Bush committed to a surge and his successor, President Obama, is the one who decided to send far fewer than those in field command thought necessary - and he was able to do this easily because the press ran interference for him.

[Leaning Right]

President Bush committed to a surge and his successor, President Obama, is the one who decided to send far fewer than those in field command thought necessary

I hear you, and you do make a good point.

But why was an Afghan surge even necessary in 2008? The war should have been over long before then. That's on Bush.