Is US President Obama's troop "surge" in Afghanistan a good idea?

  • I support the Afghanistan troop surge, because it signals our commitment to a long war.

    The Afghanistan war has become the longest running active conflict in American history. The troop surge signals to the Taliban and the Afghan people our commitment to win this fight, despite how long the war has dragged on. It was somewhat successful in Iraq, and it should, hopefully, yield good results in Afghanistan, as well, so we can bring our troops home someday.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • The surge in Afghanistan is good because we need to dedicate more troops to the war.

    If any country wants to win a war, it is important that they dedicate the proper resources to fight it. This is the case with Afghanistan. If we want to be successful in rooting out terrorists, we need the proper manpower to do it. If we are unwilling to put troops into the war, we shouldn't be there in the first place.

    Posted by: NauseatingAbdul53
  • Yes, because it worked in Iraq, it should also work in Afghanistan.

    The troop surge he implemented in Iraq worked, and it helped us to get the troops out of there within a six month timetable. And since we have sent the surge into Afghanistan, the amount of deaths and injuries have gone down by 90%. With the surge, we have been able to split up our forces, putting troops in all parts of the country, and basically caused the enemy to scatter and hide in the mountains leading into Pakistan. We basically have them trapped in the mountains, with the U.S. on one side and the Pakistani Army on the other side, holding them in a stalemate.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • Yes, because the surge worked in Iraq, then theoretically, it should work in Afghanistan as well.

    It's time to end this war. Whether it works or not, it should be the last attempt. It has worked in the past, so it should work again. Just end this war though, and bring our troops home already.

    Posted by: RachelW
  • The surge is the right idea, and should have been done sooner.

    The troop surge in Afghanistan was the right decision, but it should have been larger and sooner. Let's finish this thing now, or pull our troops out of there. Afghanistan is a place that historically can not be taken and held by an army. I feel like this is what is going to happen again, but you have to go after the terrorists.

    Posted by: 5h035Bow
  • The surge will help in Afghanistan will help like it helped in Iraq.

    As you know, violence almost came to a halt once we surged troops in Iraq. Iraq is a great model for this theory because it shows us that surging troops does indeed put violence levels at a minimum. If we surge troops, the enemy must concede that we have more resolve and they will give up. If they have more resolve then us, then we will lose this war.

    Posted by: R3ubHockey
  • Yes, it worked for Bush in Iraq, why not try it in Afghanistan?

    Look I am not an Obama supporter. In truth, I can't stand the man. He is for just about everything I'm against. My son is in Afghanistan right now, so I take this issue personally. If Obama, wants a troop surge to win this war, I'm behind him one hundred percent. Something tells me that he is doing it for political reasons only. He sends a mixed message. If you are going to commit our young men to combat, do it to win! They deserve better.

    Posted by: BriaBlacken
  • If we couldn't win the war in 10 years additional troops will not matter.

    We have developed mission creep in Afghanistan. We are no longer going after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 but attempting to stabilize the country, which is in many ways perpetually unstable. We are fighting the Taliban, a political movement of Afghan's and Pakistanis. There is no winning this battle militarily. The Taliban need to be returned into the political fold of Afghanistan.

  • View of a vet

    It is hard for a landlocked country to progress in the same economic level other developing world countries. You can not airlift in a economy and expect it to last when we leave. Afghanistan is a landlocked country its structures are built in such a way natural disasters destroy buildings. Production of electricity increases and people buy more TV's and air conditioners leading to less time the electricity can be used. Their is no billing system for their electricity so people use as much as they can get. currently we are a major importing and exporting partner. Increasing this with troop influx leads to a society with few economic prospects more dependent on Americans. Maybe the best thing economically for Afghanistan when we leave would be to join with Iraqi or Pakistan so it has access to ports. This is not unprecedented, Newfoundland and Labadore did back in the 50's when they joined with Canada and it helped their economy.

  • I oppose Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan because I think it will only cause casualties and not accomplish anything else.

    I oppose a troop surge in Afghanistan for many reasons. The first is that we are fighting a war that we aren't going to win. There is no changing the mindset of the people and the government in the Middle East. Bringing in more troops would only cause US casualties. I don't even know what our mission is over there any more. We've already lost too much and don't need to sacrifice another life for a losing war.

    Posted by: SilentIgnacio
  • I disagree with adding more troops to Afghanistan, because we need to stop helping other countries who do not help us.

    Our country is in serious debt right now. The easiest way to help our country is to stop helping all the other countries. They are not going to be around to help us when we face another depression. It's time to bring the troops back home to their families and friends.

    Posted by: HealthyMose59
  • I oppose the surge in Afghanistan, because I believe it will cause a heavy retaliation.

    Upon killing Osama bin Laden, we were given a statement that vowed retaliation. Al-qaida said that they would become "a curse that hunts the Americans and their collaborators, and chases them outside and inside their country". I believe that any statement that is that serious will be absolutely carried through. A curse that would hunt Americans is a serious threat.

    Posted by: ZanyTroy41
  • No, because simple increases in force will not solve the problems in Afghanistan.

    It will only lead to more American deaths, more hatred towards America in general, more "accidental" deaths, and more friction between the citizens of Afghanistan and America. If we wanted to do the job right, then we should have helped with reconstruction, after we helped them remove the Russians in the 80's. We didn't do that, however. So, now we need to take advantage of the split going on in Al Queda, and help the younger members, who have the same thinking as American society, when it comes to government and policy reform in Afghanistan.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • This war cannot be won with more people.

    Sending more troops to Afghanistan will not really help the situation over there. This is not a war of "whoever has the most bodies, wins". This is a matter of counterinsurgency-type operations, and sending combat troops to do the work of an advisor is not going to accomplish anything except upset the locals. Besides, the logistical nightmare of Afghanistan only complicates things, especially when you send a huge influx of troops there. It's a recipe for disaster.

    Posted by: M4ck3God2iIIa
  • It's a tough situation all around, but if the US backs out now what was it all for?

    Historically when the US pulls out of a high risk region it has reeked havoc on the remaining citizens. Although very imperfect, a high international presence lets those wanting to do harm to innocent people know the world is watching.

    Posted by: Ramon Griffith
  • No troop surge in Afghanistan will not do any good because the situation there is unwinnable.

    In reality that area of the world is a place where most people should just get out and stay out. The people who inhabit the areas of Afghanistan where we are still fighting are not going to give up and they know too much about the area and how to use it for their benefit. We simply can't survive and win a battle there without a surge that is larger than the army that we have available to us.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • The surge is trying to carry one idea from the Iraq war to Afghanistan. The climate there will not support it.

    Afghanistan is a unique territory that does not respond well to "police" force, as did Iraq. A surge will only promote mounting opposition to US forces. To defeat terrorism in Afghanistan, we must spread more propaganda, get locals involved, and get Pakistan on board. Guns and manpower cannot change idealism; though political pressure can.

    Posted by: Pur3E2ra

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.