A.Rafay
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
The American people are now as opposed to the war in Afghanistan as they were to that in Vietnam 40 years ago. An Associated Press poll in May found that only 27 percent of Americans still support the war while 66 percent oppose it, which puts it in the same territory as the height of opposition to Vietnam.
So why are both presidential candidates promising to keep combat troops there for two more years and likely a so-called residual force after that? Why are we asking thousands of America's young men and women to be the last Americans to die for this mistake? So far, almost 2,100 already have, with another 17,790 wounded, and it has cost American taxpayers more than a half a trillion dollars so far.
After the debate, the professional fact-checkers were all over the candidates' assertions, including their references to the auto-industry bailout, exports to China and Romney's charge that Obama had made a world apology tour (a pants on fire whopper, they said). But the checkers were AWOL on the president's claim that the surge of 33,000 troops into Afghanistan in late 2009 and which ended last month was a success. It wasn't.
According to NATO forces' documents acquired by reporter Spencer Ackerman, things are worse in Afghanistan now than they were before the surge, with more attacks, not fewer. Even more troubling is the nature of some of those attacks.
The American exit strategy is predicated on training Afghans to fight the resurgent Taliban. But now some Afghan troops, taught to use lethal weapons, are using them on their American mentors. There's a name for the phenomenon: green on blue killings, which have claimed the lives of 50 coalition-force members so far. The attacks so rattled the U.S. forces that some of the training was suspended last month. It has now resumed, but after 11 years of failure it's hard to believe that something miraculous will happen in the next two, especially since some of the insider attacks are not from the Taliban but from ordinary Afghans enraged at the occupation of their country.
Read more here: Time has come to leave Afghanistan | Opinion | Rock Hill Herald Online
So why are both presidential candidates promising to keep combat troops there for two more years and likely a so-called residual force after that? Why are we asking thousands of America's young men and women to be the last Americans to die for this mistake? So far, almost 2,100 already have, with another 17,790 wounded, and it has cost American taxpayers more than a half a trillion dollars so far.
After the debate, the professional fact-checkers were all over the candidates' assertions, including their references to the auto-industry bailout, exports to China and Romney's charge that Obama had made a world apology tour (a pants on fire whopper, they said). But the checkers were AWOL on the president's claim that the surge of 33,000 troops into Afghanistan in late 2009 and which ended last month was a success. It wasn't.
According to NATO forces' documents acquired by reporter Spencer Ackerman, things are worse in Afghanistan now than they were before the surge, with more attacks, not fewer. Even more troubling is the nature of some of those attacks.
The American exit strategy is predicated on training Afghans to fight the resurgent Taliban. But now some Afghan troops, taught to use lethal weapons, are using them on their American mentors. There's a name for the phenomenon: green on blue killings, which have claimed the lives of 50 coalition-force members so far. The attacks so rattled the U.S. forces that some of the training was suspended last month. It has now resumed, but after 11 years of failure it's hard to believe that something miraculous will happen in the next two, especially since some of the insider attacks are not from the Taliban but from ordinary Afghans enraged at the occupation of their country.
Read more here: Time has come to leave Afghanistan | Opinion | Rock Hill Herald Online
