“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668659664272147.html
from the article:
Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.”
Excellent, informative article, thanks for posting it.
You’re welcome, I thought it was on target.
I get this sense Obama is acting according to what the Democrat POLITICIANS want in order to make political hay—”You shouldn’t have attacked Iraq, but put all that in AFGHANISTAN”—as if one size fits all in military matters.
Bush, for all his flaws, seemed to listen to the military, and stick with their advice even when public sentiment was against it.
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.