Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

Sorry, I pulled this up from last year, I know I shoulda made a new one, especially with the start dates so similar. It just amazed me that no new discussion on Afghanistan in nearly a year

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

I have always thought that the Afghani campaign was not given much press, even under Bush, and have always wondered why. I too saw Obama characterize this as the "Good War" and thought that, unlike past Afghani campaigns, this one might be winnable - i.e. establishing a stable govt. that limited the terror groups operating within its borders.

Unlike the Russians and Britons, I didn't see us as trying to establish a client state. Perhaps that is just a mistaken view on my part.

Regardless, it has always struck me as odd how the Afghani campaign has been such a low profile war.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

LOL... Read through the thread without realizing most of it was from a year ago.

Sorta proves the point about the media coverage.

Why the lack of interest by America? Is it b/c the economy, health care and the snow storm have driven it from our minds? How long does Obama plan to be there? Are we trying to establish a client State? Are our efforts in this country in vain?

We have lost ~ 1,000 men in "and around" Afghanistan. Where is the discussion as to the neccesity, or lack thereof, for there sacrifice?

Just curious.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;664777]LOL... Read through the thread without realizing most of it was from a year ago.

Sorta proves the point about the media coverage.

Why the lack of interest by America? Is it b/c the economy, health care and the snow storm have driven it from our minds? How long does Obama plan to be there? Are we trying to establish a client State? Are our efforts in this country in vain?

We have lost ~ 1,000 men in "and around" Afghanistan. Where is the discussion as to the neccesity, or lack thereof, for there sacrifice?

Just curious.[/quote]

That was my point exactly. Amazing that we could discuss the nuances of Iraq daily for 8 years, while soldiers have been in the mountains of Afghanistan, with much of the same dangers and tasks, and not hear nearly as much discussion. I would tend to think that Iraq was Bush's war, and the Dem's saw it as a way to make political hay. Conversely, Afghanistan is a joint Rep/Dem war, and Republicans aren't generally going to bash military action, so there is no significant counter to an ongoing military siege. It just simply amazes me. Could anybody imagine a 7 day siege and advance in Iraq, or Vietnam, or any past war not receiving Major headlines??