Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe it is safer to be in the military in wartime conditions under someone who wants to win the war rather than someone who doesn't care about victory.
I believe it is safer to be in the military in wartime conditions under someone who wants to win the war rather than someone who doesn't care about victory.
Casualties under Bush from 2001-2008 - 630
Casualties under Obama from 2009 - present - 1122
There is just not the same media scrutiny and attention as there was under the predecessor.
If you care about facts, you might appreciate that Obama has actually stepped up fighting in Afghanistan. That's why there are more casualties.
If you remember 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan because they harbored al Qaeda, who attacked us. Bush quickly shifted resources from Afghanistan to fight the unneeded Iraq War. Obama put the emphasis, rightly, back to Afghanistan. There were more drone attacks in Obama's first year against al Qaeda than in all of Bush's term.
No serious person can conclude that Obama doesn't care about Afghanistan.
Understandable, since we are now concentrating on the war we should have been fighting all along, instead of that wasteful and pointless one in Iraq.
I always supported the pacification and stabilization of Afghanistan, to the extent that was possible. Lives have and will be regrettably lost in that effort.
But at least they weren't wasted on an unnecessary and costly invasion and occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...at least until we invaded.
Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
I don't know if that's a statement of contempt or ineptness about the troops. It definitely is not supportive.
And has he ever really had an Afghanistan plan or strategy? He dithered around for months about sending more troops.
The evidence says that he is not interested in completing a task and getting the troops out of there.
I believe it is safer to be in the military in wartime conditions under someone who wants to win the war rather than someone who doesn't care about victory.
Casualties under Bush from 2001-2008 - 630
Casualties under Obama from 2009 - present - 1122
There is just not the same media scrutiny and attention as there was under the predecessor.
The candidate who campaigned on reducing troop numbers in Iraq and focusing on the war in Afghanistan reduced the number of troops in Iraq and focused on the war in Afghanistan. I can see why you would have a problem with that.
I believe it is safer to be in the military in wartime conditions under someone who wants to win the war rather than someone who doesn't care about victory.
How often does he bring it up? Give us a status report? Remind us of the goal of the troops?
I don't see or hear much from him. The military people are doing their jobs - but Obama for the most part is disengaged.
the main one is to train the ANA which is not a easy task
Lazy Afghanistan Army - YouTube
here is the on the ground reality for the troops that are training the ANA and when US marine is there teaching them and not having your rifle with you or not putting on their gear before they go on a patrol is pretty bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.