President Obama to Send 34,000 Additional Troops to Afghanistan

@anniepa (27236)
United States
November 25, 2009 12:28pm CST
I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this here. It's been reported by numerous sources that President Obama has made his decision regarding Afghanistan and will announce next Tuesday that somewhere around 34,000 additional troops will be deployed there. Any comments? Will those of you who have made a point of attacking the President's every move give him credit for this? Or will you disagree, just because HE is doing it, even if you've been calling for the same thing for months? Also, are you worried about who's going to pay for it or where are we even going to get all these troops since we're already stretched much too thin? Annie
2 people like this
19 responses
@jbl1975 (374)
• United States
26 Nov 09
Personally I wish he would just pull all troops out of everywhere and have them here where they belong so they can actually defend the country instead of offending other countries. In a lesser sense, I would be for this as long as he pulls the troops from Iraq, where they shouldn't have been to begin with. Anybody who still believes we should be in Iraq like we are needs their head examined.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
30 Nov 09
"Anybody who still believes we should be in Iraq like we are needs their head examined." Super-non-Limbaugh-dittos!! Annie
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
27 Nov 09
Honestly, at this point, I'm done with the military occupation in the middle east. I stayed on the fence about it for years. War is an economic and emotional drain for the entire country, and sometimes I just feel like we should pull out and let them play the game by themselves. I disagree because I don't like the war - just as I did when it started.
2 people like this
@worldwise1 (14887)
• United States
25 Nov 09
I have always tried to be supportive of President Obama, anniepa, but I must admit that this move puts the lie to his promise to end the war during his campaign. I fear that these wars we are presently involved in will be never-ending, with much loss of human life and finances. That is how I honestly feel about it.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Nov 09
That is why he is taking the advice of the general to send in more troops - to get the war over and done with.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
27 Nov 09
But is every general, simply by being a general, automatically right about everything? If that's the case then why have there been a number of now retired general come forward to say they disagree with how some things had been handled in both Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush Administration? This isn't meant to be a partisan criticism since it's happened with every Administration that has gone to war. We're still dealing with individuals with minds of their own. Worldwide, I'm also turn by this. I'm anxious to hear what the President has to say when he gives his speech. I don't want those who are already there to be in worse danger for longer if we don't send more but I don't want this to turn into a 100 year war either. We can't run their country or take care of their country indefinitely. We have to take care of our own interests and get out, in my opinion. If additional troops for a short time will help make that happen, I guess I can live with that. Annie
@worldwise1 (14887)
• United States
27 Nov 09
I would just like to add that there are some generals who disagree with the recommendation that was given to President Obama, but you will have to search to find any media coverage about that.
1 person likes this
@Aingealicia (1906)
• United States
27 Nov 09
Annie, You know how I feel about Obama and this move, even if it was not by him, I do not agree with. I see more families that are going to have Dover visits because of this choice. Honestly it has nothing to do with him, it has to do with the move of the troops and where they are coming from. Have we not lost enough of our Soldiers to this needless war? Do we really need to send more, especially around the holidays, to come home in boxes covered with a flag. I would be ripping if it were McCain as well. Ainge May the soldiers be kept safe and come home to their families in this journey.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
30 Nov 09
Ainge, we certainly have lost more than enough of our national treasure in both of these wars! I'm torn on Afghanistan at the moment because while I did support going after Bin Laden I certainly never expected it to still be going on, several times worse in fact, eight years later! My nephews were there last year and they both have said they don't know why we're still there, we're not doing any good and our troops are dying for nothing. They've been home for over a year now so I don't know how much has changed since then. It's all been so worthless. We went into Iraq when we never had any business doing so, thus turning our back on the job we'd started in Afghanistan. I'd like to add that just because a general says something doesn't mean it's right. We've had generals who wanted to nuke Korea among other very BAD ideas in the past. The generals weren't all right during the Cuban Missile Crisis! Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
2 Dec 09
Annie, I always learn so much from your discussions, thank you for teaching me more. I will say on a personal note, I am feeling like we are watching Vietnam II. These soldiers are my friends, their younger brothers and sisters, and some of us children. My son is 18 next year so he will be up if there is a draft. After the choice of sending them over there, hurts us as a nation in my opinion. So many are against this move. However, in defence of the military and Obama, they should know what they are doing. There has to be a reason. At least give them some of the benifit of the doubt that there is a reason for it. My gut says there is no reason to be there. Ainge
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
26 Nov 09
I have to agree with Lil...the military has been asking for more troops and that's exactly what we need to do, send more in, unless we want another Vietnam on our hands. There are many factors involved when it comes to Afghanistan. The future of the country...it's people have to be taken into consideration. We can't simply pull out and leave those who have supported the allies to be slaughtered and we can't win with the current troop numbers. I also heard that other allied troops will be joining ours.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
26 Nov 09
I just wish I knew what it will mean or how we'll know if we "win", you know what I mean? I supported the war in Afghanistan from the start and was frustrated with how it got shoved onto the back burner for all these years. I just don't know where we're gong to get all these troops from at this point. However, I'm not an expert on the military by any means so I've got to trust in those who are to do the right thing. The LAST thing we need is another Vietnam! Annie
@iriscot (1290)
• United States
25 Nov 09
I have mixed emotions about deploying a lot more troops over there. This isn't a mop-up action though and until those governments over there in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan take control and commit themselves to eliminating the terrorist and war mongers, I guess we'll have to be there in force. It only took a few years for Bush and Cheney to make a mess over there and it's going to take a lot more years to clean it up. The hardliners and righties should be reminded that they didn't worry how much the War over there was costing in lives, wounded and dollars when they were in office. Now let's see how many jump up and complained about the cost now.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
30 Nov 09
I also have mixed emotions about it. I know Afghanistan got put on the back burner so we could fight the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq. Now suddenly the D1ck is accusing the current President of "dithering" because he's taking his time making his decision when his crew had 8 years and didn't get the job done. Annie
• United States
25 Nov 09
we have got enough men and women over there. Im sure who ever is over there can handle the job just fine. no need to waste more money and risk the lives of 34,000 more troops.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Nov 09
Obama can't be the blamed for this one...it was the general who advised Obama of needing more men. The general actuall wanted more. The decision to send more men is to get the job done right this time, so they can come home. Obama took the advice of experienced men, something that Bush never did.
2 people like this
@K46620 (1996)
• United States
26 Nov 09
I don't think we can afford this. We have a huge debt and plenty of issues in our own country to deal with. Also, the war is unconstitutional because we never declared war like the Constitution says. Our empire is overstretched and we are running out of money. These same issues are what brought all other empires down, including the Roman empire.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Nov 09
Offensive War is NOT the war to end war. I did a long winded comment of response #1.
1 person likes this
@mpkool (84)
• India
26 Nov 09
i feel that the decision is not good on the military point of view but taking the account of the afghanistan it is essential to send the troop keeping in mind the atmosphere that is being existing in that country...and who know this may be an another political move to pressurize pakistan for stop feeding the terrorism
1 person likes this
@StarBright (2799)
• United States
26 Nov 09
Hi, Anniepa, the minions of the attack machine are gathering their forces to see how they can spin this one to a negative. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Keep in mind that the contrived and malicious grass roots reform movement cannot ever say anything positive about this administration. They might be taken out and shot at sunrise. I think all of us are afraid, as well we should be. At the same time, we must listen and look at everything that is going on over there and around the world, as well as at home. Either we are committed or we are not. We cannot put our troops in a war and not give them the resources to win it. Will it be another Viet Nam? God, I hope not. Only time will tell. This is one of those situations where President Obama did not start this fight, but he sure as h_ll has to do everything in his power to end it and effectively. There may come a time when we walk away, but now is not the time. As for who will pay, where will we get the money; those are all questions that need to be answered. But to paraphrase a line from Saturday Night Live, "We're smart enough, we're good enough, and doggone it people like us again."
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Nov 09
I haven't been on mylot for a few days, been busy spending time with my lady and doin the holiday thing, so I have not yet had a chance to comment. Hard to say yet what he is planning on doing as he has not yet made an official announcement. I do know he has been asked, almost begged for more troops. I say if this is what his guys on the ground have said they need they should have gotten them already. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I am not one to sit and armchair quarterback a war, there are people in charge and on the ground who know what their doing, we have some of the best military minds onthe planet and given the chance and the right things and personal to do the job, they can do it. We allowed Afghanistan to go by the way side for too long, Bush neglected it, and up to now, Obama has taken a half hearted stance. So, again, lets see what he intends to do and if he does in fact honor the many requests he has recieved. If he is willing to do what needs to be done, then he has my full 100% support in this effort.
1 person likes this
• Australia
26 Nov 09
Although I don't live in the US, I have always adopted a Democratic philosophy. I can't stand the Republicans. Therefore, as you can imagine I have adored Obama, much like the whole word, and as such is heavily biased. But, people of a right wing conservative persuasion must admit that, Obama's logic is quite exemplary. Firstly, he acknowledges that, being in Iraq or going into Iraq was a mistake and that 911 was as a result of the activities carried out by the insurgents in Afghanistan. So, his decision to send extra troops to Afghanistan and to finish the job that was started, not focused on for the past few years, is again a great example of his logic. We obviously can't just leave Iraq because of Bush's stupidity, so we must stay in there until the people of Iraq unite and resolve the problems caused by Bush. Lets just hope these extra troops can also resolve the war in Afghanistan.
1 person likes this
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
28 Nov 09
I'm more concerned with the stratagem being employed. Any good tactician knows that you must overwhelm your enemy, to have the quickest, least deadly battle. So yes, sending more troops is good, but is it enough? McChrystal, the International Security Assistance Force General, and General of all US Forces in Afghanistan, says we need at least 40K more troops and a shift in our combat plan. I happen to be the type that when the General who's there and in the trenches, says we need X number of troops and a new plan, I assume we really need X number of troops and a new plan. So why a new plan? Well because right now we have 'rules of engagement'. We have a situation where our people can't go where they need to go, and do what they need to do. In short, we have a re-enactment of Vietnam on our hands. This is why some people are calling him Lyndon B Obama. Consider... during the Vietnam war, we had rules of engagement. A system were you could bomb targets, but then you were not allowed to bomb again. So they simply rebuilt bunkers and other military assets. We couldn't go into Cambodia, so enemies would attack, kill a bunch of our people, and retreat to Cambodia where they regrouped for another attack. We have the exact same thing happening here. We find a hide out and bomb it, but then we can't bomb again. They cross over from Pakistan and kill a bunch of people, then retreat back to Pakistan where they regroup and for another attack. So, is Obama being an LBJ, and re-enacting the Vietnam war? I don't know. I've said for quite a while now, we need to either pull out completely, and call it a loss, or go in completely and wipe them out. You can't go half cocked. All or nothing. Obama needs to either call the whole thing off, or go all out. Send as much troops as they need, and take the shackles off our troops, and let them mop the floor with the Taliban. This is a good first step in that direction. We'll have to see how the rest of it goes. Now there is one thing I am pissed off at Obama for. Because of all his reckless spending, all the crap programs to "stimulate the economy" which have never worked in the past, and haven't helped now, we don't have the money for the troops we need. So now Obama is planning a special tax to pay for military spending. Oh well great... absolutely wonderful. Just what we need in a recession is a new tax! There's a plan... when consumer spending is down, take more money from consumers! Brilliant! Here's a thought... cut spending on those crap programs like Amtrak, and use that for the military.
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
30 Nov 09
I haven't heard where "Obama is planning a special tax"; some members of Congress have proposed a war tax but I haven't heard the President himself speak out for or against it. It should be noted that throughout history in times of war the American people have been called upon to make sacrifices, to do their part in the effort. Lately, it's fallen only on the military and their families. Right now the middle class truly can't afford it, especially with so many out of work and losing their homes. However, the upper-income people have been partying the past eight years so I see no reason why they can't pay a little portion of that tax cut back. Annie
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
30 Nov 09
Obama has to raise taxes, there's no way around it. Nancy Pelosi is his party. Funny that when democrats did things during Bush's presidency, you blamed Bush for their actions. Now, you have a member of Obama's own party, and you are excusing him for it. You think that raising taxes isn't going to effect the lower class? Why am I surprised. Liberals have no concept of what an economy is. Hello Annie... we're all connected hon. If the owner of my company pays more in taxes, that just means he'll raise his pay. That's what being owner is all about. If he raises his pay, that means he'll have to pay everyone else less. I'll be screwed because you thought taxing rich people was a good idea. Do you remember the Yacht tax? Look it up. Everyone thought only rich people buy Yachts, so we can put a luxury tax on them. What happened was rich people stopped buying yachts, or they purchased yachts from other countries. Who suffered? The lower class workers in the Yacht industry. They all lost their jobs, and were unemployed. They were screwed because liberals thought taxing the rich was a good idea. When you tax the rich, you shoot yourself in the foot. Oh and btw, about that War Tax... maybe you haven't been paying attention... The war tax, is a surtax. Meaning it's exempt from IRS exemptions. It will affect people making as little as $22,000 a year. You think the rich are going to pay for this? No madam, they are not. We are going to pay it. We are going to pay higher taxes during a government caused recession, because our leaders have blown $10 Trillion dollars, and don't have the money to pay for the things that matter.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Nov 09
I think you have not heard much on it because everyone is holding their breath to see if the "war tax" talk to going to happen. Some members of congress are asking for one to pay for the war. It is scaring the heck out of alot of people. And I don't blame them. It seems a new tax is brought up every other day. Now as the Obama's decision....I say if the generals are saying they need the extra troops....give it to them. They are the ones on the ground. They know what is going on. What the trooops need and how to win. Obama does not have military experience so he needs to rely on his military advicers and the generals in charge who do have the training, knowledge and experience to get the job done. The last thing I want is for our men and women already there to not get the support and supplies they need to do the job. That costs more lives.
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
26 Nov 09
I'm afraid there's going to have to be a "war tax" if we're to send that many more troops. They've already BEEN n both Iraq and Afghanistan without the supplies they needed to keep them safe, such as armor for their vehicles, all the while the richest Americans were enjoying their huge tax cut from George W. Bush. Yep, Congress went along with that too. For some reason they only needed a simple majority back then, not 60 votes to get something passed. Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Nov 09
The continued deficit spending is continuing to erode the value of the dollar. It is insanity and unsustainable to keep going deeper in debt. Freedom is not promoted by brute force causing the people you are supposedly helping develop a hatred of you. I am a Vietnam Veteran and I came to realize that my war was not about the freedom of the Vietnamese. It was about growing the USA Empire that mostly benefits the elite, wealthy men of European descent. We maintained 500,000 of us in-country for over a decade and never "won." Yet our military "leaders" did not want to give up... The soldier boys need to bloody our army and they only earn medals to pin on their puffed up chests when we have wars... Their advise is tainted at best. Tactically and historically the Brits and the Russians never really conquered Afghanistan. The Russians could not do it with 1.6 million troops. And do not underestimate the Russians militarily. They were the true Second Front that defeated the Nazis by suffering huge casualties. Between Irag and Afghanistan is Iran. Militarily Iran has been positioned for a two-front war. The Middle East occupation is about oil and oil is about power, economically and militarily. WWII was settled in part by cutting supply of oil to Germany and Japan. I think nobody can win WWIII, Obama has been maneuvered to continue the USA in the Age of Reagan, and we, the American people, are taking huge risks in "trusting" the ruling bullies who use us...
@VANILLAREY (1473)
• India
26 Nov 09
If you want to give Taliban a chance to rise again then don't send more troops.
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
27 Nov 09
They already HAVE risen again, several years ago. Annie
@eddify (413)
• Pakistan
27 Nov 09
That came to me as a shock as well, but somehow it seems as if he is still following the policies of the previous govenment. I thought he will be one who after Iraq will be calling back the troops from Afghanistan as well. But I think now it will take more time then ususal and of course American have to suffer
@Rollo1 (16689)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 Nov 09
As I understand it, this info is a "leak" that the White House is angry about and there's no confirmation of it. I don't know if this is what Obama will announce next week or not. I do know he has said that we might not like what he's going to tell us but once we all know what his reasoning is, we'll all get on board. Of course, he keeps telling us that about health care reform - you only think you don't like this plan, just wait, you're gonna love it! I can't guess if this is accurate info or not. I am not a expert in the administration or fighting of wars and I suspect Obama isn't either. That's why I think he should do something in line with the advice given him by those who are experts, the ones he appointed advise him - like McChrystal. I think the exasperation with his decision-making regarding Afghanistan has been the time elapsed, as you said, it has been months.
@aerous (13474)
• Philippines
25 Nov 09
I heard about that issue in your country. But i don't think sending more troops is enough to stabilize the rouge country of Afghanistan. I don't see any win win solution for Afghanistan unless they are concentrate on local officials that will muddle the situation there because instead of providing good services to their constituent they corrupt the money that will help the people their to start a new living. Since, people there will not have enough foods and education Taliban forces will increasingly and violently because they provide money to the citizens that have no idea on where to find a living... US military should not be there for combatant but for providing aids to those needy and avoid killing more innocent civilian for not increasing their enemy...