Skip to comments.Why U.S. Troops Want to Stay in Afghanistan
Posted on 10/25/2013 9:06:34 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
U.S. and Afghan politicians are in the middle of a heated debate over whether a small American and NATO force will remain in Afghanistan at the end of next year.
But what's a political and strategic question at the negotiating table is an emotional question at bases around Afghanistan, where soldiers watch the discussions with one eye on their sacrifices over the past 12 years and the other on the American withdrawal from Vietnam four decades ago.
In short, they don't want to go home without the win.
After repeated combat tours, an untold number of divorces and nearly 2,300 U.S. dead, American servicemen want their losses in Afghanistan to have been worth it. For many of them, that means keeping a residual force here to help the Afghans fend off a resurgent Taliban.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Why would they want to come home to Queerville Obamacare Gulag Land??? Better to wait it out.
The troops don’t want to pull out without a win because that would mean all the lost lives and limbs of their brothers were for nothing.
If this is really coming from in-theater vets... I don’t know who has currency to argue otherwise.
You nailed it.
It seems like they were for nothing. The histories of the geographical areas now called Iraq and Afghanistan tell a tale of repeated failures at civilizing them, at least in the western way.
Iraq has a chance at civilization. Afghanistan was, is, and will remain a stone age toilet.
Without reading it I’m going to say in the top three of many reasons is the same reason a kid would stay with a neglectful aunt rather than go home to mom’s abusive boyfriend. At least there are movies and you can play a boy’s game once in awhile with rules
“pull out without a win because that would mean all the lost lives and limbs of their brothers were for nothing”
That’s completely childish thinking. So are we supposed to lose hundreds more so it has “meaning”? The best way to honor those lost is to not lose more pursuing a war where we have to be careful not to insult the enemy or their religion.
It’s meaning was lost when we decided that they should ever be trusted with a weapon or self governance. It’s meaning was lost when we have to show difference to islam. It’s meaning was lost when McChrystol refused fire support to men in battle.
It’s meaning was lost when our troops were told not to be critical of Afghan moslem pedophilia.
Just another Obama foreign policy disaster.
Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.
So close to victory just five years ago and now Obama will retreat like the coward he is.
We have lost more wars under Obama than all other presidents combined.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
FYI, Taliban targets descendants of Alexander the Great 2,500 years later and they (afghans) are still pissed.
“all the lost lives and limbs of their brothers were for nothing.”
Yes, I’m afraid so. At least all those lost after the first six months. We should have gone in, and killed as many bad people as we could find. Screw Gitmo; just kill them and leave the bodies for the crows.
Then we should have left.
Go tell the troops that, tough guy.
I look at everything, everything, from an eternal point of view. Those who served because they love their country, their families, their brothers in arms, and do their part out of love, have not loved in vain. No Greater Love is never given in vain.
That’s a good post right there.
Thanks for that.
That about sums it up.
Given the pending obamacare debacle,
Afghanistan may be a safer place to be.
No one is blind to how the douche bag pissed on the Iraq effort.
On a twist of the old saying used in the stock market "Don't throw good money after bad."
Don't throw away living blood after the dead.