Posted on 06/06/2011 8:07:29 AM PDT by CNSNews
(CNSNews.com) – Amid reports that the Obama administration may be considering an accelerated troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday highlighted his views on the timing and nature of the coming reduction.
Paying a farewell visit to U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he leaves his post late this month, Gates said that if it were up to him, he would favor withdrawing support troops first and leaving the combat component – “the shooters” – in place for as long as possible.
“I would look for support people that we no longer need,” he said during a visit to Forward Operating Base Dwyer in Helmand province. “We’ve done a lot of construction – maybe those people aren’t needed. I’d try to maximize my combat capability as long as this process goes on.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
LLS
Yes, Obama doesn’t give a rat’s behind about the troops, but neither did Bush, or he would not have started conventional wars in these countries. The troops should not have been sent to Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place. Invading a country is an ineffective way to deal with an international, loose-knit gang of thugs, Islamic or any other kind. This is not WWII all over again. There is no Berlin or Tokyo to conquer. Bombing the mountains flat and having special ops people present was working rather well, but as soon as we sent in troops, “Operation Provide Targets” began. If anyone had the sense to see, it was inevitable that this would lead to a long occupation with no defined victory. A war on terror? When does “terror”, a tactic, sit down and sign surrender papers?
Yes, Obama is reprehensible, but Bush initiated this horror. We have been involved in these conflicts almost a decade, lost many fine young people, killed some civilians along the way, and spent billions of dollars, for what? To get one guy? As conservatives, would we have supported these wars if a Democrat had been in charge? I wonder.
Well, we got OBL, doing it the most costly way possible, so now what? Can anyone say there is a mission or a goal in Afghanistan or Iraq now? Maliki and Karzai are thugs just like the ones they replaced. They are robbing us blind and laughing at us. The Afghan troops are at best a joke, or, even worse, on the enemy side. Currently, there are mass demonstrations in Iraq (which the media does not cover) and fighting may erupt in Kurdistan, so that our troops could be in the middle of a civil war. Which side will we be on then? Are we prepared to fight in a civil war to prop up Maliki, buddy of Iran? There are no good guys in these countries.
What has this massive sacrifice done for US security? These goat herders don’t have armies that can invade our country. The only way they can harm us is if we let them in, which we do in large numbers. Thanks to Bush, we brought in thousands of Iraqi refugees, or as I like to call them, members of the Future Terrorists of America Club.
I don’t know how anyone from the Bush or Obama administrations can sleep at night. They must not read the heartbreaking stories I do about the dead and wounded. Politicians use soldiers as pawns and send them to war on a whim. It makes me furious every time I read of another American family who has to bury a child or spouse or parent. Bring the troops home now.
Every time someone in the administration talks about these wars, they always blab about the mission, but never define it. So, tell me, what is the goal? How do these wars end?
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.