Comments on: Your Take: Withdrawing from Afghanistan

By: alex_grimaudo

alex_grimaudo — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:10:23 +0000

I'm pretty sure that there are other legit conflicts in other parts of the World, and yet we still remain in a place where we haven't had a major victory in years. The taliban are a threat to the World, but they aren't the ONLY threat. There are other conflicts which we should address first before sacrificing more troups in a war that we have already lost.

By: alex_grimaudo

alex_grimaudo — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:10:23 +0000

By: juules

juules — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:10:31 +0000

The U.S. should remain in Afghanistan AND Iraq. The stages of genocide are so clearly present in Iraq that without any outside forces genocide will surely occur. The use of drones is causing American hatred within Afghanistan. The recent voting in Afghanistan was largely controlled by the Taliban – not enough external forces were there to offer protection to the citizens. The citizens are not educated enough to truly believe in democracy. Many civillians simply joined the Taliban because they were providing them with money and basics. The troops need to stop the idea of only violence, and start the idea of increasing education.

By: 254cdc

254cdc — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:19:28 +0000

I would say that George is right about Pakistan, and the need to secure the porous border with Afghanistan, and that in that region, Pakistan is the country we need to worry about. Foreign Policy Magazine in collaboration with the Fund for Peace ranked Pakistan tenth on the Failed State Index in 2009, in between Guinea and the Ivory Coast. This is a country with nuclear weapons, with active war zones within, and just outside its boarders against groups that are actively seeking WMDs for its ideological war. A destabilized Pakistan is a scary proposition for nuclear proliferation, that alone should be enough justification for the continued presence of American and Coalition forces along the Afpak border.
We shouldn't completely withdraw, but i'm not sure if we should continue to patrol the rest of the country.

By: CINC

CINC — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:26:36 +0000

We the Falconist Party think that we should increase the number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan to a million troops in each theater. After WW2, we garrisoned Germany, a nation of 100 million people with four million GIs. That is one American soldier for every 25 Germans. If we apply that ratio to Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have 25 million people each, that is a million troops in each theater. We also believe that the overall size of the U.S. Military should be increased to 20 million active-duty personnel and the National Guard and Reserves should be expanded to tens of millions of citizen-soldiers. With this in mind, we call for the implementation of Universal Military Training and Mandatory National Service.

By: claytonjaksha

claytonjaksha — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:51:41 +0000

I believe the U.S. should maintain the number of soldiers, marines and airmen in Afghanistan. However, if no great change is occurring within the next half-decade, a slow withdrawal would probably be the best option. This is because even though those airstrikes, Special Operation units (SEALs, Rangers, etc.), drones all can be used from offshore, the people of Afghanistan will not know that the U.S. Military is present in the area. If they don't know that we are present, more mindless, civil bloodshed will occur. Essentially, our armed forces are the only thing holding these belligerents apart (again, my own opinion). We must also think about the cost our soldiers, marines, and airmen take as well. They risk their lives every day they are deployed. Therefore, to consider the needs of humanity and the needs of our troops, we set a deadline. If nothing substantial is completed by that deadline, then, like I said before, a slow withdrawal would be the best option. That way, the Afghans know we are still present, but don't realize that we are leaving. It would save lives and boost the greater good.