[Joe Boucher]

Can we win in Afghanistan?
Yes, if we turn the job over to our military and get the hell out of their way and just let them do it.
Ya hear me stupid politicians? Obozo?

[STONEWALLS]

....I got my doubts on Afganistan....Iraq at least was a country....Afganistan is just a bunch of tribes.

[Jonny foreigner]

Can we win in Afghanistan?

---

As long as we are not willing to depopulate the whole “country” and ensure that no one could ever settle again lets say for the next 100 years (and we know this is not even an option). NO. No one can win anything in Afghanistan. People there will never change. If the tribes don´t fight the allies they will contine to fight each other again. this is all they know and all they have ever done in their life.

[SERKIT]

So “victory” is off the table, now we’re talking about “succeeding”, next will be “quagmire” or “Viet Nam”, followed by “retreat with dignity”, finishing up with Barry bowing to the next Jihadi leader of the country. Oh boy......

[uncommonsense]

I didn’t hear any answers, just questions. If the Tall-e-bon can take over northern Pock-e-ston with little trouble, then it would seem that S. Afghanistan will always be vulnerable. The Tall-e-bon did a good job during the recent elections. So yes, we can win - if, and only if, we let the best military leaders define the strategy, rules of engagement, fund them, use drones, and pressure Pock-e-ston to stop funding the enemy, kick into high gear, and rip their heart out for good.

[stuartcr]

We should have focused on Afghanistan immediately after 9/11 and done what was necessary then.

[hflynn]

You can hurt the Taliban big time, probably splintering them into self interest factions, by simply destroying the poppy fields.

[silverleaf]

bttt

[silverleaf]

Sure we can win:

By buzzing the enemy instead of bombing him

By sending more troops but not a whole lot of troops, for domestic political, not military, reasons

By prohibiting troops from attacking the enemy when they hide behind civilians

By releasing or giving Miranda rights to captured terrorists

By having our secretary of state lament that our combat troops are not subject to prosecution by the International Courts

By threatening to prosecute US officials who in 2002 worked as allies with an anti-taliban tribe who mistreated, in traditional cultural fashion, taliban POW’s

By not calling this a war and not calling the enemy terrorists

By the totally cool totally innovative US policy of offering “millions” of dollars to Afghan farmers to stop growing poppies

By continuing to characterize the “challenge” from al Qaeda in Iraq and the “challenge” from al Qaeda in Afghanistan- as two separate conflicts, one legitimate and one illegal

By emphasizing that our president has Hussein as a middle name and shows his muslim savvy by saying Pokky ston and the Tolly bon

By withdrawing the US from confronting al Qaeda in Iraq and stepping up fighting the taliban in Afghanistan.
(PS lefties- we know you like to say Iraq never attacked us so- did the taliban attack us on 9-11?)

[RAO1125]

The real question is, is it worth the blood and treasure?

[neverdem]

Afghan war poll triggers Obama political alarms

The rats, as usual, are feckless.

[wtc911]

No.

[PhilDragoo]

Stewart believes that bin Laden operates out of Pakistan precisely because Pakistan, a more robust state than Afghanistan, restricts U.S. operations.

While Obama restricts operations in Afghanistan.

I submit he is engineering attrition and humiliation of the America he despises.

He is an Islamo-Communist mole.