.
March 27th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Should U.S. send more troops to Afghanistan?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama is stepping up the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. He says the U.S. will send 4,000 more troops there in addition to the 17,000 additional combat troops he authorized last month.

Pres. Obama says the U.S. will send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 17,000 he authorized last month.

Mr. Obama is describing a "comprehensive" new strategy to confront the growing threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Seven and a half years after the 9/11 attacks he says al Qaeda is planning new attacks against the U.S. from its safe haven in Pakistan.

President Obama says up until now Afghanistan has been denied the resources it needs because of the war in Iraq; and he's pledging those 4,000 additional troops to help train the Afghan Army and police - new legislation that would help the economies of both countries; and more civilian help to develop Afghanistan's economy and corrupt government.

As for Pakistan, the president says that after years of mixed results, the U.S. won't provide a "blank check" to them; they'll have to prove they're committed to rooting out al Qaeda.

It seems like Mr. Obama has public support behind him here. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows 63 percent of those surveyed favor his plan to send an additional 17,000 troops into Afghanistan. However, he also has his work cut out for him: While 62 percent say the U.S. can eventually win the war there, only half that many think the U.S. is winning now.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. send additional troops to Afghanistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Joyce from Kansas City, Missouri writes:
Hell no, Jack, we should stay out of Afghanistan. This is a campaign unlike any other - especially Iraq. History says that several large countries have been brought to their knees in Afghanistan. There are numerous shady factions ruling absent any form of government. We have problems at home and further conflicts will surely bankrupt this country.

Jim from Gardendale, Alabama writes:
Jack, To me the key is: Are we going to continue with our efforts to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda? If that's the case, then yes, we need to have another surge in Afghanistan just like the one in Iraq. We are weak in numbers there and additional troops are needed.

Rita from Sebastian, Florida writes:
My son just did 15 months there after 2 combat tours in Iraq. His unit is on notice they'll deploy again this fall when his enlistment ends but he may be forced to stay under "stop loss." We've sacrificed enough, those who have already done 2+ tours need to be let go.

Michael from Liverpool, New York writes:
Sure, if they send them from Iraq or from an overseas base like the one in Turkey. We should not send any more troops from here in the U.S. because those troops are needed to deal with the drug cartels in Mexico.

Dennis from North Carolina writes:
Yes, we need to finish what we started and do it correctly so we do not have to go back.

Bill writes:
No, Jack. Enough is enough. It's time to stop being the world's police force and get serious about using our resources (financial and otherwise) to begin solving our problems here at home. Our time to deal with Afghanistan was immediately following 9/11, and we have long since squandered that opportunity. Let's not turn this into another Iraq. The last time I checked, we're still there.


Filed under: Afghanistan • Troop Withdrawals • U.S. Army
soundoff (316 Responses)
  1. nancy - PA

    Based on President Obama's message, the alQaeda organization is a threat to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States only. I come up to this conclusion as a result of the rhetoric used by our president regarding the number of American troops that are and will be sent to Afghanistan. Without the increase in the number of troops, the US already has 68% of the total troops from countries that provide over 500 servicemen.
    AlQaeda, therefore, is not a threat to France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. Perhaps, the lives of our servicemen are less important than the lives of our Western counterparts.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  2. Ray in Nashville

    It's strange how conservatives will now tell how Afghanistan is a deathbed of world powers since it's a Democrat who wants to put more troops in there. We need to take the fight against terrorists to where they are, which is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I just wonder if we would be out of there now if Bush and Cheney had not started their own personal war in Iraq?

    March 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  3. Independent Joe

    Jack, we have two choices.

    1. Send enough troops to stabilize the country and finish what we started.

    2. Cut and run.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  4. Philip from Toronto

    Absolutely not!
    The next thing I want the US Army to do is fly the last helicopter off the roof of the US Embassy out of there.
    There is NOTHING in Afghanistan worth dying over, not one thing.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
  5. Charles, Lansing, MI

    We should turn Afghanistan over to the Vatican. Both are attempting to emerge from the fourteenth century so they could probably help out each other.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
  6. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    This is where we should have focused our efforts all along. Yes, there is a job to be done in Afghanistan and it will require more resources than we have previously devoted to the effort. President Obama has his priorities straight.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  7. Ed Reed

    I don't believe we should, and I supported the original invasion. The Afghan people are not loyal to a strong central government anyway and their current one is so corrupt they will never coalesce around it. It's our next quagmire.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX

    March 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  8. Jayne

    Troops should be sent for 2 reasons: to eradicate terrorist organizations that might eventually acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan and to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Let's face it – we no longer have the financial capability to do anything more than that.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  9. Keith - Cleveland

    First, check with the Russians to see how they won their war there, then do the same thing.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  10. Jason, Koloa, HI

    No more war.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  11. Remo......................Austin Texas

    Only if they have the support/supply lines in place to get them the proper materials and field support they need. If you're going to stretch them out in a remote and hostile country without close back-up. Pull them all out until a proper operation can be done.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
  12. John from Alabama

    Jack: We should never have been in Iraq, therefore; we should send more troops and equipment to fight the taliban. The Afghanistan terrain is so rough that it is like fighting on the backside of the moon. The Afghanistan War will take 3 to 5 years, but Afghanistan is where Osama bin Laden trained the taliban and where his lieutenants still train the taliban today. They finance this war with the $38 billion they get from the drug trade. Tell me why we were in Iraq, again.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
  13. Richard New Hampshire

    We have no choice but to send more troops to Afghanistan.The tribal situation and impeding geography make Afghanistan a very difficult theater of operation.Success depends on the Afghan people supporting our efforts.
    The US supported the Taliban in thier battle with the Russians.It is understandable that Afghans(Taliban) do not want foriegn fighters in thier country,the US or others.
    Alexander the Great went for the Persian King and he won the battle.
    We need to go after the al qaeda leaders.
    Pakistan is a greater problem than Afghanistan with it's nuclear weapons,tribal strife and unsteady government.We need help from other countries to address the Pakistan situation.
    The US needs a well thought out strategy for the region.

    March 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
  14. Al, IA

    Absolutely. And once it's finally ours after 40 years of fighting to acquire it we should rename it Pipelineistan to more aptly reflect it's soon to be geopolitical attributes.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
  15. Tina Texas

    I say send this little dab of soldiers and if they can't win the war, which we all know they can't because Russia tried and went bankrupt and now we are not far behind and then pack up and get the hell out of their country. Make our borders more secure and keep a watchful eye on who is coming and going into America. We cannot afford to keep policing the world.
    Tina
    Tx

    March 27, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  16. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    No, and in my own humble opinion we should bring all of our troops home and send them to the cities and states to stop the drug cartels and win a war that is causing more harm to our own people. When I say all of our troops, I mean all, Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, S. Korea, Japan.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  17. james sloan

    Dear Jack, I hate to say this, but yes. If Bush, Cheney and thier buddies were not ripping us of in Iraq for the last 8 yrs, and focused on Al Queda in Pakistan and Afganistan maybe it would not be so urgent now. Jim Sloan, Phoenixville Pa

    March 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  18. Russ in PA

    No, the US should pull all military out of Afghanistan. Close up shop everywhere, and bring them all home. From Germany to S. Korea. Bring them home, before the big spenders in Washington break everyone's piggy bank, and forces them to walk home.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  19. Venia PA

    Since gbw decided to invade Iraq (over a lie) terrorism has increased ten fold and they seem to find a safe haven in Afghanistan so to answer your question – yes, we should send more troops over there.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  20. Melissa

    Yes. Afghanistan was nearly totally abandoned after the US destroyed its infrastructure and way of life. Its time that the US fix what it started.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  21. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: That's is a moot question--they are already on the way!

    March 27, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
  22. Joan B

    Not now ! Afghans need to be told "ship up as we are shipping out soon" ! If you can't get them in Pakistan there is no hope.
    Joan B
    Minnesota

    March 27, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  23. Hope M. Madisonville, KY

    What we need to do is fight smarter. Train soldiers so they can
    speak the language, learn the customs and infiltrate groups like
    the Taliban and AlQuada if we want to break the terrorists. More troops
    to maintain order in villages and undercover operatives to get to the
    heart of the problem. We need to have soldiers who can get ahead of
    them and bring them down.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  24. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    Yes, whatever it takes to capture and try Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his cronies should have been our one and only objective in the first place.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  25. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    Yes, as long as there is some kind of actual plan to accomplish something and then get out before we are there for years, and not the old "until we succeed in bringing democracy". Exactly how is democracy supposed to determined? The people vote? Did that in Iraq and we're still there. Remove a nasty dictator? Did that in Iraq and we're still there. We write their constitution? Did that in Iraq and we're still there. We now know what NOT to do anyway.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  26. Jackie in Dallas

    We have two choices in Afghanistan, Jack. We can exit without meeting any of our initial goals and after we have caused a tremendous amount of damage to their infrastructure, or we can staff to the point where we can actually get something done.

    With the diversion of troops and money to Iraq, the Afghani action was never properly staffed. Our ground troops have had to depend on missiles and large scale air support, which is rather undiscriminating about where it falls. We need significant ground troops and equipment available to have more surgical strike capability, and to train Afghani troops and police to start taking up the slack. Wouldn't hurt to raise the bounty on Ben Laden's head, too.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  27. Carl D.

    Jack,
    In my opion, sending more troops to Afghanistan is like wasting American lives and throwing tax payer money out the window, this is a war we cannot win, Russia tried this same thing for 10 years and you see where it got them. Obama needs to keep his promise and get us out of Iraq sooner than his new deadline date, and Afghanistan. I think the American people are very sick of America trying to be the Police of the world, i say enough of these senseless, stupid,costly wars.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  28. Phil, georgia

    Yes!! Finally, we are fighting the right war. Just because we were fighting the wrong war in Iraq, does not mean Al queda in Afgan. feel sorry for us and all of these years haven't been planning catastrophic attacks for us or any of our interests.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  29. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    Afghanistan is where armies and countries go to die. Obama needs to leave there now and send every member of the bush administration there to fight this stupid,tragic mistake Everyone who died there is a murder caused by bush/cheney. We should all be ashamed.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  30. Kerry Diehl

    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Iran…..it makes no difference to me. Let’s fight them over there instead of on our shores.

    The radicals want to fight us regardless, so let’s keep the nasty stuff over on their side of the fence.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  31. Mack in Traverse city Michigan

    Jack we should send enough troops to mount a summer campaign and drive all the taliban and Al Caida back into their caves. We should then use our air force to cut off all their supply lines and escape routes and use our ground forces to keep them there. We should use our technology to jam their frequencies and cut off their communication. A jail is a jail is a jail, be it steel bars in Cuba or a stinkin cave in Afghanistan.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  32. Pablo in Tejas

    Jack
    they don't call The Afghan "the graveyard of empires" for nothing. We need enough troops to hold what we must while we train an army for the central government.
    To train the Afghan Army US advisors should begin training grunts and non-coms on the ground in Afghanistan. We should bring officer candidates HERE in small units for a 12 month's crash course in leading men, combat operations, quartermaster & supply etc.
    (Sort of a mini West Point)
    Build up a competent officers corps of 3,000 or so who then return home to take over training the enlisted men themselves. Then we pack up, leaving them a few tons of heavy ordnance as a parting gift, wave bye-bye, and get the H-E double outa there!

    Pablo
    Arlington Texas

    March 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
  33. don dean

    We will never learn,ask the USSR about the troop count

    March 27, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  34. Ralph in Orange Park, FL

    The US should send enough additional troops to Afghanistan to accomplished the stated purpose of training an Afghan military and police force to handle its own security. If the Afghans prove unable and/or unwilling to do this, US troops should leave.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  35. Jenna Wade

    Should the U.S. send additional troops to Afghanistan?

    Yes, we need to finish what we started.

    This nation DOES have ties to 9/11 – they allowed Al Qaeda training camps (not Iraq) – they are hiding Osama Bin Laden (not Iraq) – the Taliban has reared its ugly head again

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    March 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  36. Peg

    Perhaps it is a wise idea. Had we had more troops there to begin with
    perhaps we would have caught Osama ages ago. It seems this has become a "do-over". ~Sighs~

    March 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  37. Allan Hanson Placerville, Ca

    No, we are never going to "win" this war and we should "bite our tongue" and pull out. King George should never inaded Afganistan. Get bin Lauden but don't destroy the country to do it. The Afgans had nothing to do with bin Lauden and should not have been punished.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  38. Jerry B.

    Yes, but they need to pay us back for bring our troops over there...Why should we pay the bill?? I never get my question answer for asking that..Why do i have to pay for helping people out , that i dont know who they 're...I dont want to see those people get hurt, but we have to help US out before we should other people out....We do it FOR GAS, thats bull, The oil people needs to be getting the samething as A I G people, paying us back!!!

    March 27, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  39. Rich Monk

    Hey Jack,
    My answer is NO. In fact bring "all" our American forces home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, S. Korea and anywhere else they are. Bring tham all home to protect the Borders of the USA for once!
    What the hell is wrong with US politicians? Our Borders are wide open and yet they send our service people to protect "Corporate Interests" elsewhere. We went to Afghanistan to hunt Bin Laden down not to replace a failed state. America just keeps repeating the same failed foreign policies year after year, decade after decade. Remember Vietnam people??? It was a complete failure from every angle. We destroyed the country with Agent Orange, and to this day children are born with cancer and defects resulting from our arrogance. Anyone who died there, was a wasted life, and that blood is on the hands of every politician that voted to be there, you spineless, greedy cowards!
    My step son is in the ARMY now, and served in Iraq, and my wife was born in and escaped Vietnam in 1975.
    Rich Monk,
    San Diego, Ca.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  40. Steve

    We need to bring our troops home not send more to die. Support our troops, bring them home now.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  41. Gerry In Toronto

    Absolutely Jack, US allies like Canada and others have been holding the fort in Afganistan and dying in large numbers because of a lack of American troop support-in spite of the fact it really is a US war.

    All of Canada thanks President Obama for recognizing this issue and sending more troops to help out your allies.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  42. Frank from Peterborough

    In the short term it is absolutely necessary to send more troops into Afghanistan but having said this it also imperative NATO develops a sound plan for getting all troops out of this country as soon as possible.

    These countries have been living by the sword for centuries and for the most part it doesn't appear they have any fervent desire to change their culture.

    Sooner or later people have recognize Western cultures and ideology is neither wanted nor workable in areas determined to fight to the death in defence of their respective cults.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
  43. Will North Charleston, SC

    Jack President Obama is only doing what Former Pres GW Bush should have done in the beginning. We should not have went to iraq, instead we should have fought the legitimate war.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
  44. circy in New Mexico

    We could send a million troops to Afghanistan, but it won't change the outcome of what is a war that we can't win. The terrain, the tribal nature of the people there, the hatred of foreigners would all contribute to our defeat. We should have learned this in Vietnam, but our so-called military experts never seem to catch on. Our weapon superiority is negated by the above mentioned conditions, making our weapons no better than a rifle. Plus, the Afghans, just like the Vietnamese, have a will to prevail. That fact alone would result in our defeat, no matter how long we stay or how many troops we send there. Finally, the Afghans see us as invaders, not saviors.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  45. Irv Lilley

    Jack, The main thing the gov. should do is get Ben Laden,. True probably others would take his place, but it would make them think harder . Disurpting the terrorists network should get top priority.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  46. Paula in Albuquerque

    The troops should be deployed to the American southwestern border States...in order to maintain safety, security, and the integrity of the American frontier, and its citizens...period.

    I have no doubt that Obama, unlike Alexander the Great, and other extraordinary "commanders" of old, does not have the appetite to personally LEAD his forces, in Afghanistan, and put his personal fanny, on the line. And, since he does not, he should send them where they will do the most good....the porous, leaking-like-a-sieve...as readily accessible as your 24-hour neighborhood Walgreen's...Mexican border...in order to prevent "spill-over" from the drug-cartel wars on the border...and to intercept the SEMI's full of illicit CASH, being transported from this country into Mexico.

    THAT would ke a keen offensive against "terror", and its perpetrators! For that would be a meaningful bar to lawlessness, kidnappings, and murders which, this very day, are afflicting Phoenix, Houston, my home of Albuquerque, and, apparently 200+ sleeper-cells of cartel gangsters, and teenaged hitmen...WITHIN the continental United States.

    This country is BROKE. Let's face it! How can we afford to spend at least a BILLION of dollars, each month...when out industries are on their knees, and American citizens are resorting to living in tent-cities!

    Mr. Obama is being as "cool" as all get out, with his adoring throngs of admirers, and Air Force One, at his beck-and-call. But, I have to ask...

    "What planet are you living on, Mr. President?"

    March 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  47. Jim

    Yes, send more troops to Afghanistan. That 's where the battle against terrorism has always been, not in the Bush trumped-up battle in Iraq.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
  48. Sue Austin Texas

    A big yes that is where the problem always was and will be until we fix it.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  49. Richard, in Kansas

    Yes, it's a good place to attack pakistan from.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  50. Will North Charleston, SC

    In 2001 Former President Bush told the citizens of New York City and the entire country that I quote "the people responsible for knocking these buildings down will hear from all of us soon". Well nearly eight years later Osama Bin Laden is still on the run. He heard from us alright. He heard that we gave up looking for him and that we instead invaded another country that had nothing to do with 911. Bin Laden is still taunting us to this day.I pray for President Obama everyday because Bush left a mess for him to clean up...

    March 27, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
  51. John S. Cleary in Dayton Ohio

    I defer to the experts . Pres. Obama must be very cautious not to get us bogged down there.He is very smart,and I believe he has definite goals in mind.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
  52. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    Yes. We just need to start realigning troops from the pointless war in Iraq to a real enemy in the Afghan/Pakistan region.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  53. Terry from North Carolina

    Jack
    No more additional troops anywhere. How about bringing them all home and using them to seal our borders.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
  54. Gigi

    I say pull out. Let them take care of them selves. We make our country great again and build a new relationship with the winner.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  55. Jim from Chicago

    Sorry to say, Jack, but I think we have to. The U.S. needs to stabilize the area, especially the volatile Pakastani border provinces, to keep the powder keg of Islamic extremism from exploding. Another case of lack of regulation requiring us to bail out the company (country).

    March 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  56. Daniel Indiana

    It, unfortunately, may be a necessity for America to assist the Afghanis gain the upper hand in this fight. We are not to be an occupying power in any form and we should be doing whatever we can to assist the Afghanis in contending with their own problems. War will not give the farmers a new cash crop to replace opium poppies. We have to do our best to get them to realize that the growing of the poppies is not a valid crop for them. There are many other things that Americans can help guide them with, but we mustn't believe that we are there to conquer them. The few that have ever conquered them were merciless and would not function in today's world, think Genghis Khan and Amir Temir , i.e. Tamerlane. Those conquerors slaughtered all that didn't immediately join their side and fight with them. That is not modern warfare. That is what we refer to as "war crimes".

    March 27, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  57. lynn

    Seeing as you, your viewers and I have not read the intelligence reports nor been briefed by the military leadership, how can we know??

    March 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  58. Paula

    No, With all his Popularity-He should be able to snap his fingers to Europe and Britian. They like the guy, they should be volunteering. without a second thought. RIght. You got NATO-Just order them too. We are The Boss. They take orders from us since World War 2 ending. They do what we tell them to do.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  59. BRC

    Jack, yes.

    Canada will welcome the amount of US troops on the ground and it’s a relationship that has been going on since 2001. At Julian in Kabul. I had the honour of being a civilian supporting not just the Canada Forces, but the multi national forces that were there also. The Americans in particular were always very complimentary about the Canadian base, and I am sure that the current building and upgrades to Kandahar will be very much appreciated by the Forces of Canada.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  60. Pat - Butte Montana

    Yes.

    March 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  61. Doug in New Mexico

    I'm not sure what is the right thing to do. But what if we allow al Qaeda and the Taliban to regain their former presence?

    March 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  62. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Absolutely NOT........................NOT
    You can take over a country but I tell you Jack you can not take over a culture.Just think what we could have done that wasted money and
    wasted lives.Building good things for the future of all cultures.
    There is a big big difference in running around shooting guns and being stupid and being really tough,meaning what you say,having a plan and not letting ourselves get stuck in a place we have NO business.
    David

    March 27, 2009 at 3:01 pm |
  63. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,I think President Obama now knows it's a lot tougher to be President than it is to run for President.This to me seems like the "surge"strategy,that the President said would not work in Iraq.Let's see,differnt country,different President,same policy!!

    March 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  64. Ken in NC

    NO. Bring them home and deploy them to the southern border to catch or kill any person or persons attempting to enter into or transport drugs into the United States from Mexico and to stop any person or persons attempting to transport firearms into Mexico.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  65. Eddie in NC.

    Yes in order to combat an enemy you must be where that enemy is, for to long we have been involved operation (my father could not but i can) and that has resulted in the lost of lives and provided not one ounce safty or security for Americans. Know to those of you who have labeled me a war mongrel understand this, I hate war after twenty-four years of service most of it in the 82nd Airborne Devision I understand the devastation associated with war, but I also understand what it takes to win.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  66. Charlie in Belen, New Mexico

    Personaly, I would like to see G.W.Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld out there with their butts on the line instead of my neighbor's kid. Since they were so certain that someone had to go there, why not them. In fact, I'll even go with them. I may be old, but it wouldn't be my first time as a fireteam leader... (With Cheney's marksmanship history, he'll be point man... I darn sure ain' t going to be in front of, or next to him....)

    March 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  67. Tom Ft Lauderdale

    Jack
    I think that Afganistan and Pakistan is a direct route to Bin Laden . I am also hearing a change in tactics from Korea and Veitnam policy to a cut and run tactic.. You fight fire with fire. The objective is to control the people not the real estate...

    March 27, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
  68. Sonny in SC

    its about time some one did something to even the score for the victims of 911, now if Obama will keep convicted to afganistan since Bush got his revenge maby we will see the real enemies of our country crushed atleast now we will be fighting for our honor

    March 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  69. Geri -Oklahoma

    We should only send more troops if we actually want to win this war in Afghanistan, otherwise let the Afghani people work things out on their own. Their beliefs and ideas about life, the male and female roles, religion, violence, and governing are totally alien to us just as our ideas and beliefs are alien to them. Every person on earth like every nation as a whole must, as part of their overall purpose, work out their beliefs about violence. This is one of the reasons why we exist on earth in the first place. Thou shalt not violate another person's mind, body, or soul. This is the main rule. A rule that seemingly we as a species have yet to comprehend.

    Geri – Oklahoma

    March 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  70. Dennis north Carolina

    YES, we need to finish what we started and do it correctly so we do not have to go back.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  71. Jim S from Gardendale, Alabama

    Jack, to me the key is "are we going to continue with our efforts to defeat the Taliban and Al Quadi." If that's the case, the yes, we need to have another surge in Afghanistan just like the one in Iraq. We are weak in numbers there and additional troops are needed. Personally, I question t his whole effort because of the drug industry there and the local dependence upon the income from this source. We can't even keep drugs out of the U.S. much less eradicate them from Afghanistan. That being said, the Taliban draws their monetary support from these drugs so what does that tell you?

    March 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
  72. S, Michigan

    Yes. That's where we should've been all along and not getting bogged down in Iraq which had nothing to do with anything against us.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  73. Jerry Alpharetta. GA

    In a word, NO. As with the former President there seems to be no clear-cut strategy since there are no clear cut objectives. If you commit troops you must accept the fact that they are soldiers not cops. Why put our troops at risk for something that has at best spurious objectives. Also, what is President Obama going to do about all of the Opium that is produced in Afghanistan? You cannot fix the Afghan economy without addressing their opium trade. Wy don't we hear more about that issue? Is it time for agent orange?

    March 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  74. BRUCE, ST PAUL, MN

    Win the war? Its not a win/lose kind of thing. Like the poor, the terrorists will always be with us. If we can root the bad guys out of Pakistan and Afghanistan can stand on its own, that will be a victory, of sorts. But the war will go on.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
  75. Alan - Buxton, Maine

    Under no circumstances should we send more troops to Afghanistan. We are only provoking more violence against the US by continuing to invade Muslim countries. Get out of that part of the world and let them handle their own affairs. It is poor thinking in the extreme to believe we can bring stability to an area that has not been stable for thousands of years by choice. It is sad to see that Obama is no smarter than Bush in this area.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  76. Jonathan in Virginia

    The problem set in Afghanistan is very different than Iraq. In the words of Yogi Berra, "there is no 'there' there." The place is desolate and the only thing that grows well is poppies, used to make heroin, which is high in demand, but it has certain drawbacks. The whole infrastructure of the country seems to be based on dried mud. Until the Afghan economy can be developed to the point that it can make the country self-sufficient, there is no chance of saving it. Security is only a first step to allow an economy to develop., but without an economy and infrastructure, what are we securing?

    March 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  77. Richard - Knoxville TN

    Jack – Having ANY troops in that god forsaken hell hole is one too many -

    March 27, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  78. Billy G in Las Vegas

    sounds like another Vietnam to me complete with the "Cambodia West" of the Pakistan tribal areas where the enemy can hide and regroup between attacks.

    time to take a lesson from the British and Russians and just leave those people to their 12th century ways. we will NEVER bring those ignorant beasts into the 21st century.

    at least Iraq had oil. what resources does Afghani or any OTHER "stan" have?

    March 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  79. C. Jones

    In my opinion, I thought we weren't trying to send any more troops over there and I thought we were trying to stop the war. I dont think we should send troops back that have the common case of post dramatic distress and only soldiers that are ready to go back should go.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  80. DAME-O / TEXAS

    I can't answer that Jack, I still don't know what the mission is really. Is winning a war there even possible?

    March 27, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  81. lou

    Yes. The sooner we catch Bin Laden and break up his group of thugs, the sooner we can put this rotten 8 years of Bush and 9/11 behind us. Then maybe we can really begin to heal.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  82. odessa

    what is going on over there?.i support president obama but afghanistan people need to take care of their own business or give up bin landen.somebody knows what is going on over there because our military troops are getting tired as well being stressed out..yes, i support the troops but at what length should our troops continue to be stuck over there? i hope that president obama's plan is better than bush because bush left alot of unanswered holes that we haven't accomplished yet..obama should end the iraq war and let those people take of their own business..like i said, they can give up bin landen and his crew so this drama should end.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  83. Jay in Texas

    No, we should not send any additional troops to Afghanistan or Iraq. We should be bringing them home where they belong. If, after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives in Afghanistan in the last 7 years, we have not trained every man, woman, and child in that country to defend themselves, then what in the hell have we been doing there?
    Brownwood, Texas

    March 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  84. Jesse J

    Hi Jack,

    I wold rather see our troops fight for humanity and the rights of women to be free and go to school then oil.

    Ps this just also happens to be the home base of Al Qaeda... not Iraq!

    Jesse
    Vancouver Canada

    March 27, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  85. Jim El Paso Tx.

    Jack as much as I hate to see our troops put in harm's way it's a necessity. If Bush would have kept his eye on the ball 7 years ago this might not be an issue now.

    March 27, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  86. RSB - St George, UT

    Bearing in mind that I do not like war, but we have already started this one, so we need to follow through...I'd say the general answer is "Yes" with a caveat. It's not just a matter of signing one blanket order after another sending more troops at large, in small groups. There needs to be a PLAN, a firm strategy for how we are going defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban and establish a stable, democratic Afghani government. First we need to decide, are we actually going to occupy or not? Because right now, our presence there is more like a minor infection. Are we committed to establishing democracy there, or not? If so, then it's time for us to get our act together and get done what we went in there to do back in 2003. But if not, then let's get the heck out of there before more lives are lost (civilian and military), and billions more dollars are wasted. We can always figure out a different way to deal with the terrorists from the outside. If things got really bad, then we could still go back in if we needed to. Hopefully at that point we would have regained the respect of our allies, since the Cowboy President "Bring-Em-On" is now finally out of the picture. (Roland/St. George, UT)

    March 27, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  87. Ken M . Millington MI

    Hello Jack. Yes i i think we should commit more troops to Afghanistan.The real war on terror has and will continue to be there! Bush, Chenney and Rumsfled diverted valuable resources and manpower to the Iraq war.We may have broken the Taliban and Al-queada by now if it wasn't bumbled away by the Bush administration.Lets hope that President Obama is serious and aggresively use all the tools at his disposal to defeat them once and for all in Afghanistan and Pakistan.Its in the best interest of the entire world to join together to do this.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  88. Susan A, Rochester NY

    If we were truly energy inependent we wouldn't need to be sapping our strength in Afghanistan. The fight for our lives is at home for energy independence, not in Afghanistan where the ire will quickly transfer to our replacement customers, the Chinese.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  89. J Georgia

    Sure....why not. Let's fix the world problems. We're the earth's upper crust aren't we? Don't we have the ethical obligation to set the world's issues straight? So what if we're broke. This is a matter of morality.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  90. Liz, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    Yes, the U.S. should send additional troops to Afghanistan – al Qaeda is based there and in Pakistan, and the U.S. needs to concentrate its efforts there to fight the terrorist threat they pose to U.S. citizens.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  91. David in Granville, Ohio

    Reluctantly – yes. Although this war cannot be won by military might alone sufficient force is needed to defeat the extremists. Obama's approach is exactly correct. Military and diplomatic efforts, train the Afganis to fend for themselves and get other countries involved.

    It is such a pleasant change to have a thinking adult as president after the cowboy gung ho "Shoot first and ask questions later" disaster of the Bush years!

    March 27, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  92. Mike, FL

    Absolutely!! Besides it helps our economy and those guys needing work. None for them back here!! It is dangerous but not nearly as bad as Iraq.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  93. Lisa B in Yucca Valley, CA

    Yes Jack, while we try to clean up the mess Bush left behind, by letting this war slide, as he faked a reason for invading Iraq.
    I believe we will try to get surrounding Muslim countries to work with the more reasonable Taliban factions, to at least begin stabilizing the region. It is in their best interest, as well as ours.. I don't envy Obama, his task of trying to clean up they myriad of messes left by the previous adminsitration.. there will always be naysayers trying to defame the President .. no matter what he does.. I trust his judgement, tempered with the opinions of professionals he engages.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  94. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: Although I'm a huge Obama supporter, I don't want to see Americans suffering casualties. If we need to get in there, it woudl be a huge step forward for a coalition to go in together and flush Bin Laden out once and for all. That would be the crowning victory of his administration – even more than the economy.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  95. Gigi in Alabama

    I personally like his plan. Iraq has had us mired down for too long when Afghanistan is where we should have been from the start. Pakistan and Afghanistan will have to step up to the plate and help us rid them of al Quada. If not, our young men and women will continue to die for people that could not care less about freedom.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  96. Allen, Hartwell GA

    Jack, when we went to Afghanistan it was to kick butt and kill Bin Laden. Then we got sidetracked in Iraq – taking "democracy" to the Iraqis. If we're going to get serious about Afghanistan again it should not be to take them democracy, but to get Bin Laden. There is no way to get these people to agree on anything except taking our money.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  97. John Webster, Vancouver Canada

    More troops to Afghanistan, no. Engineers teachers, doctors, scientists and skilled trades to educate and help build infrastructure for their people, yes. Troops scare and doctors care. You have to win their hearts and minds but can’t do it with assault rifles. Show them the way and the Taliban will fade into irrelevance.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  98. Kevin in Taxachusetts

    NO! send them where they are needed most, Arizona, California, Texas, anywhere that borders Mexico.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  99. Greg, Ontario

    I would say yes Jack. For a couple of years anyway. Canada agreed to go until 2011 I don't see why America can't do the same. That's where the real fight is anyway.
    Pakistan needs to be told (like North Korea was) the rest of the world is not happy with thier handling of this situation and if they don't turn things around soon they will be in the same boat.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  100. Walter in Erie, Pa

    Absolutely, Jack. The difference between this plan and the plan of the previous administration is that we are going in CAREFULLY, and METHODICALLY, not all Dukes of Hazzard...It's time to get Bin Laden!

    March 27, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  101. jerry

    We need to refocus our initial objective and hunt down any and all who pose a threat to the the peace of the world. bush had his hidden agenda with the war in Iraq.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  102. Mike - Hot Springs, Arkansas

    No. We should send some experienced drug dealers and a few bankers over to purchase the entire Opium crop. That way we could obtain support of the local Afghan farmers and infuse some much needed cash into the economy. It would also lessen the hold of the drug dealers there on the economy and we would have enough Heroin to furnish it to the local U.S. users. With having to pay outrageous sums for their supply they would simply veg out and be of little problem to the nation. It would also eliminate some drug wars etc.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  103. AndyZ Lynn, MA

    Simple answer. If you're not going to fight to win, don't start the fight. My opinion is this: do what it takes to win. Remember the winner always writes history. By the way, why haven't we used agent orange on the Afghan poppey fields. Kind of attack the problem at the source.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  104. Eric Bracke

    We can't win this war. Why send more troops. Afghanistan has become another Vietnam. Afghanistan is not really a country, just tribes. If Obama was really going to try to win this war, I'd probably support it. However, Americans don't really want to fight to win.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  105. Susan from Greenfield, Wi.

    Al Qaeda desires nuclear weapons for use against our city's, and until they are destroyed there will always be the chance that they will acquire one thanks to Pakistan and the A. Q. Khan network. Our people turned their backs to the Twin Towers, are they willing to turn their backs to a mushroom clould over New York City.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  106. Jerry Harris

    If Dumb and Dumber (AKA, Bush and Chaney) had did the correct thing 6 or 7 years ago and focused on Afgan instead of Iraq things would have been alot better today.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  107. Larry - Santa Monica, CA

    It's time for President Obama to start talking about the exit strategy. He has assigned himself a daunting domestic program which I support very strongly. No human being has an attention span that allows him to handle domestic challenges and prosecute a war at the same time. A good first step in an exit strategy would be to give the equivalent of presidential level oversight to the implementation of this strategy to Joe Biden.

    I worked on the Obama campaign. I support him because he's the only game I got. But, this kool-aid, Mr. President, I'm just not drinking.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  108. Gwen

    (from St Paul, Minnesota)
    No foreign army ever wins in Afghanistan. To imagine we can "root out" the various groups we lump under the label "Taliban" is foolish. Terrorists are like cockroaches: Once you get them, the only way to truly get rid of them is to burn the house down. Hence the term "pest control." That's what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're certainly not fighting a war we can ever win.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  109. Larry -- Belton TX

    No. They should send one plane named Enola Gay over the place as soon as all our guys get out.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  110. Steve of Hohenwald TN.

    Hi Jack ! I realy enjoyed seeing you on Larry King last night. My wife was very impressed. I would like to see us bring all of our troops home from abroad, fix things here, and live to fight another day.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  111. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    Maybe, but the big thing is fixing the corrupt local governments and police and drug lords. Helping their economy is another priority.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  112. Larry -- Belton TX

    Yes. And we finally have a president who is doing exactly what he said he would do before we elected him, and this is one example. We must win without Haliburton and Chaney causing needless delays.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  113. Pugas-AZ

    If we want to keep using it for traing purposes, yes. If not, let's just isolate the country and use covert activity to help prevent further attacks on this country. There will always be warlords in the country jocking for position. Let them stew in their own juice.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  114. David Alexandria, VA

    You can call it "Obama's plan" or a new strategy if you like but the military and politicians have been sceaming for more support there for years. The fact is, we're neither winning or losing - we're stuck on a ledge and the only truth is that we can't stay where we are. So, tragic consequences to our blood and treasure not withstanding, I think we either should get in or get out.

    If we get out, that seething tribal pit will foment will simply continue to pump out terrorism and heroin. If we get in, we probably only have a 50-50 chance of actually doing what no army has done there in a thousand years - win.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  115. Cameron

    In these pressing economic times what is needed is a withdrawal from Afghanistan and a 'surge' in diplomacy and aid. The US cannot handle another quagmire in the Middle East, and desparately needs the funds being thrown at yet another long and costly war.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  116. Noah from Sumter, SC

    Absolutely! The Bush administration’s nonchalant decision to wage war in and occupy two countries at the same time without an exit strategy was foolish and arrogant. Afghanistan should have been our main, if not only, priority from the beginning. I am confident that America will succeed in Afghanistan with more troops on the ground and more airpower in the skies. I can only assume that Bush’s public speaking trainer was also giving the former president tips on the art of war. Good going Mr. Bush.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  117. Larry -- Belton TX

    We need to send as many troops as it takes to totally destroy Alqeida (sp?) and then we need to leave those dusty rockpiles to those who live in that unGodly mess..

    March 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  118. Ralph Nelson

    Not sure. I'm afraid the generals have convinced the President we can win there, we cannot. Time for the President to order a complete review of the military history of the country. Stop trying to win anything and concernate on undermining the terrorists. You see em', hit em'. Do not fight defensively, trying to control land. Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  119. Mary, Lansdowne Virginia

    Before we send more of our country's citizens and more of our country's treasure to that that godforsaken "graveyard of empires" – Afghanistan, let's CHANGE (remember that word???) our wrong Mid East policies. We do recall, don't we, that it's our wrong Mid East policies that has generated these enemies. Unfortunately, all the people in positions to CHANGE those policies are entrenched in all the old wrong Mid East policies.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  120. Jake, Beaverton OR

    It's fantasy to think we can "win" in Afghanistan. 90% of the worlds supply of opium originates there and has for over 200 years. Those who do not grow poppies, grow cannibis. The people there who run the crop growing operations will stop at nothing in allowing any interruption of that. The US already tried that and succeded only in record crops and production. And for the US to think that creating civil wars anywhere in the Middle East is a plan for regional lasting peace is Dreamworld logic.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  121. Susan A, Rochester NY

    The war in Afghanistan was lost the day we pulled out troops out for Iraq. Given Russia's experience maybe it was lost before then. The only way to "win" this war is to achieve energy independence, declare victory, and go home. China will be happy to take our share of the oil and become the new target of extremist violence.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  122. Darren

    It's ignorant of us to believe that our outcome there will be any different than all those who already fell prey to the "graveyard of empires."

    March 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  123. Dinesh

    2 Countries Authorities are most infected in today's world. Mexican Authorities with Drug Cartels & Pakistani Authorities with Terrorists.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  124. LUCY - ILLINOIS

    Since our Service Men and Women were put there by Bush and Company, I suppose we have to stay. I do think Obama is listening to the people who is in charge of the Afghan situation, unlike what Bush did.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  125. Betty, San Diego, Ca.

    Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the clear and present danger and the war that should have been waged, not Iraq.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  126. Marietta

    Jack Americans cannot even control their own borders can they? Yet Bush himself did not go after, full force after Al Queda the real enemy of 911 period! Bush only put a few miltiary there to keep us quiet and the military have been screaming for more troops for 6 years–Bush"s whole focus was on Iraq..knew much easier! Iraq did not attack us.

    To late for Afgan in 6 years are now stronger thanks /Bush!
    Bush did not really go after 911 against the real enemy why why? Bush knew Afgans would be a greater greater greater greater challenge then Iraq–Leave Afgans. no one in history over 2,000 years have ever won there–Russians there for what 11 years–over 1 million people killed there and Russia still went home brankrupt and had 150 thousands soldiers and massive military tjey had.

    March 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  127. Stephen H Smith

    Jack,

    Have the 62% of those surveyed who think we can win read their history books.

    Fredericksburg, VA

    March 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  128. Beverley, Fredericksburg Va

    Jack,

    NO – We should bring the troops home! If we can send drones from Afghanistan into Pakistan why can't we send them to Afghanistan from Pakistan. Especially since we are sending 3xs the miltary aid and the government of Pakistan is on our side?

    And then there's always India!

    March 27, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  129. Thom Richer

    The only thing we should do from this point on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and any other Mid-East country, is to pull our troops out completely, stop funding their wars immediately, cease any furnishing of weapons and take care of our own until they all come to their senses and stop their eternal warring on their own. Then when all the troops are home, place them all along the Mexico-U.S. border and stop all trade with Mexico until they rid themselves of the drug cartels and stop the importation of drugs across our borders.. If Americans want to use drugs they can travel to other countries to feed their habits. It is time to get our nose out of their dirty business.

    Thom
    Negaunee, MI

    March 27, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  130. Noah from Sumter, SC

    Absolutely! President Obama is a very discerning leader who is making an intelligent and calculated decision to send more troops in to Afghanistan. Had Mr. Bush taken a more deliberate and focused approach in OEF, we would no longer be fighting in Afghanistan. Bush’s ability to lead was just as effective as his speaking skills. President Obama inherited this mess and is excelling in his performance to repair it. Well done Mr. President!

    March 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  131. Cory, MI

    For someone who opposed the surge in Iraq how does obama now think that it would work in afghanistan? Afghanistan can only be won politically not by the military, doesn't obama follow his own speeches?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  132. steve in florida

    Absolutely. 7 years and One Halliburton jobsite later, it's time to fight the real war. Regain the moral highgound and reputation Bevis and Butthead destroyed and put Al Queda out of business. I don't think the Bush gang ever really wanted to capture Bin Laden. I think the elusive "boogeyman" served their purposes just fine living in his cave.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  133. Jan from NJ

    Unfortunately we have to send more troops to Afganistan. I hope that Americans will realize that it is because of Bush's Iraq war that we neglected this more dangerous front. If we are attacked again, I will want Bush and Chaney's butts !!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  134. Jose

    Jack, its not a question of should we but how many will be sent and how long can we sustain a presence in Afghanistan. This is a much different scenario than Iraq but with troop already on multiple deployments the true question is our staying power. The Soviet Union was effectively crippled by their venture into Afghanistan, lets hope we have learned from past mistakes.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  135. Sandy

    Yes. That is where we should have been in the first place. Remember 911 folks.If they start to control Pakistan it is over. pakistan is very unstable now and it has nuclear weapons. That is what they are after, folks. Wake up!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  136. arlene in iowa

    Bring all our troops home...let them kill each other off like they have done for so long..time to seal off our borders and worry about the american people for a change..and i don't mean how to fleece them in a new way all over again.pretty soon the united states will cease to exist..

    March 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  137. Kevin - Torrance, CA

    Sure ... as long as they kill bin Laden.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  138. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    We should only send more troops to Afghanistan if we want to avoid another 9/11 style attack. Ultimately, Afghanis need to restore the type of relatively stable governance and economy they enjoyed before the Soviet occupation of the 80s. We can help make this happen by investing in their schools roads and non-narcotic industries and agriculture. It is time to cash in some of the the renewed respect and affection for our country by enlisting more international participation in this region. We are not the only victims or parties threatened by Al Qaeda. The Saudis should participate BIG TIME.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  139. Jim

    Jack,

    Yes, we should. Afghanistan remains a sanctuary for terrorist training, planning, and funding (via opium cultivation and sales). To accept the current stalemate, or simply withdraw, invites al Qaeda and the Taliban to retake the entire nation and use it as a staging ground for future 9/11-type attacks. We need to send in enough troops to permanently drive the terrorists out of all Afghan cities and towns, and enough advisers to help the Kabul government achieve a truly national status. A free Afghanistan with a democratically elected government remains a dream many years away, but it is a dream worth pursuing. The alternative to this dream is a nightmare.

    Jim
    Reno, Nevada

    March 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  140. Meg from Troy, Ohio

    Jack–
    Yes, we should send more troops. It's time to finish the job that that we started almost eight years ago. President Obama is picking up the ball that was thrown out of the gym by President Bush in 2003 when he chose to invade Iraq instead of "staying the course" in Afghanistan. Our enemies have had five years to grow their forces in Afghanistan. Now it's time to clean them out once and for all.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  141. John Okubo, Delaware

    By the way Jack , please ask the president to exclude immigrants from dying in the American wars.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  142. Ken in NC

    NO Jack. Bring them home and deploy them to the southern border to catch or kill any person or persons attempting to enter into or transport drugs into the United States from Mexico and to stop any person or persons attempting to transport firearms into Mexico.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  143. Julie

    Why would we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I thought the "War on Terror" was over. 🙂

    Julie

    March 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  144. Jesse Benedick

    Plain and simple, yes.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  145. John, Fort Collins, CO

    Since we finally have a Commander In Chief I trust, I will defer to President Obama on the decision to send additional troops to Aghanistan. I had strong opinions on the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq, but for the time being I'm willing to keep quiet and leave this one up to him.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  146. Irene

    No! During the campaign, Obama promised to bring the troops home. Afghanistan isn't home!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  147. Michael, Atlanta, GA

    Yes, if we can afford it. Wait, we can't. Well, let's print the money to do it anyways.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  148. tyboo

    You darn right we should be sending troops to Afghanistan. We should of sent the majority of our troops there after 9/11 instead of Iraq. I guess someone thought Bin Laden was in Iraq?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  149. Abou

    no because at this time the u.s is going through hard times and if you their mothers or fathers away from them its going to be very rough for them so no i think he needs to give it some time and just stall

    March 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  150. Nathan

    Its either send more or bring the ones over there home. That outcome could be a bad deal not only for the United State but the entire free world. I'd send even more, many more. I'd also say get the cameras out of there and take care of business the old school way....start thinning the terrorists out not one at a time, but one area at at time use bombs not bullets.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  151. Travis

    I believe that we (USA) needs to make a decision on what we really want to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe that we should leave Iraq and focus on Afghanistan but I dont think we need to send more troops so soon. I am a former soldier in the Army with 3 tours in Iraq, the troops and thier families could use a break.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  152. Michael, Liverpool, NY

    Sure if they send them from Iraq or from an oversees base like the one in Turkey. We should not send any more troops from here in the US because those troops are needed to deal with the Drug Cartels in Mexico.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  153. Patty Barsalou

    I totally support the president's decision to send more troops. He has intelligence that we do not have, and I believe with his desire to end the war, he would not make this decision lightly but with good advice and wisdom. Many people seem to have forgotten our country under attack and how we felt about seeing our countrymen die, but I am delighted to see our president has not forgotten and is responsive in a decisive, informed way.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  154. Michele, Sparks NV

    Yes, Jack. He needs to send the troops in so we can start diplomatic relations. When President Obama talked about This region, he talked about both military and civilian presence to negotiate dialog, to stop sanctions and gain the support of the civilians of the area against Al Queda.

    Is that not a great plan to ensure the security of our country and its civilians?. Diplomacy and security (What a concept!)

    Granted this could have been avoided by doing this after 9/11, but since we are looking forward, these are the steps we need to take now to ensure bigger strides in the near future.

    I know many will complain about troops deployment, but this time they have a clear mission and a Commander in Chief that has their back and that of their families.

    PEACE

    March 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  155. Buster in Poughkeepsie, NY

    Send in a whole lot of troops, and start building a bunch of U.S. military bases, for we're going to be there for a hundred years. It's going to take that much time for the stone-age inhabitants to catch up to the rest of the modern world. In the meantime, we can teach them tolerance, diversity and the American way.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  156. Mike

    Jack, it depends on what America's justification is for sending the additional troops. The message has been bungled by the government on this one. Are we still avenging the deaths of the 9/11/01 victims, or are we acting to eliminate credible, present-day threats against our own security? The latter is a good enough reason; the former is not. President Obama needs to make the case that the troop surge in Afghanistan is about present and future security, and not about vengeance.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  157. Sandy Buckingham

    I am 100% behind President Obama concerning the Afghanistan/Pakistan policy. We have needed this action for a long time!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  158. Jeff from Peoria

    We'll be there for ever. You can't win that war but we sure can keep them busy running

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  159. Paul George

    March them through Iran on there way out of Iraq. Send all of the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  160. Kumar S, Winston Salem, NC

    I don't think they should even have troops over there, what they need to do is secure our borders instead of helping other countries or whatever they are trying to do.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  161. donald Skinner Jr

    No. I don' think that more troops should go to Afganastan. Because it is no longer our fight unless they attack us first again. So I honestly think they need to come home and be with there family.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  162. Dan

    Jack–

    Absolutely. These are the people and this is the region from whence the 9-11 attacks originated. We need, as the President describes, a comprehensive strategy that involves our military, the military from our allies, civilian efforts, training of Afghani police and military as well as support for their infrastructure. Anything less is piecemeal.

    Our real enemies reside in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions and they will not go away. They have to be broken. It is not going to be fun or pretty–and I detest war–but I am not so incline to sit and wait to be on the receiving end of another attack.

    Those who thought Pres. Obama was weak on defense now themselves are demonstrating how politics shapes their so-called "conviction."

    Dan
    Philadelphia

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  163. The Ghost of Abe

    Well, learning a lesson from history is always important. Afghanistan is a tough situation, but remember when the Russians failed there, we were the ones supplying the Afghanis with the rockets to shoot down Russian helicopters. When Ghengis Khan invaded, his army was already weakened and there was a powerful empire in place he was invading. Today Afghanistan is a much different scenerio and helping to build up a country in such poor condition is an achievable goal, one that would help our cause of eradicating terrorists that infest the region. If we truely want to fight terrorism as a people, then it is important to take the fight to the enemy, and Pakistan/Afghanistan is where they reside.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  164. Bill

    I agree with Irene. Afganistan is not home. He wasnt elected just to change the war venue, he was elected to bring home the soldiers.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  165. BOKE

    PAKISTAN'S NUKES. That WHY we are sending troops to Afghanistan.
    // WHAT ELSE COULD WE DO? The U.S. could offer to guarantee protection to Pakistan (e.g., from India's nukes) IN EXCHANGE for handing its nukes over to US. THEN we could forget about the pile of rocks in Afghanistan (which terrorists would then be welcome to hide under).

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  166. Pat in AZ

    I believe it was Obama who told us just a few months ago that we should not go to war until we have a clear mission and a clear exit strategy, including a "date certain." To support the president's opinion, we SHOULD NOT send more troops now!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  167. Brad - Iowa

    What will an additional 21,000 troops do to pacify the region when the Soviets couldn't do it with 200,000?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  168. Roland - St George, UT

    Yes...but it's going to take a lot more than 4,000 additional troops to do it right...and Washington needs to call all of our experienced military minds to the table to work out a plan to get this taken care of in the quickest, most efficient way possible. Our troops don't deserve anything less than that, and quite frankly, neither do the innocent Afghani civilians caught in the crossfire.

    (Roland/St. George, UT)

    March 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  169. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    Yes. We just need to start realigning troops from the pointless war in Iraq to a real enemy in the Afghan/Pakistan region.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  170. Karen R, El Paso TX

    Yes he should send more troops. They should have never been pulled out of there in the first place. The job was not done!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  171. Michael Roepke - Dallas

    What’s the question, Jack. Should America finish the one war we were justified in waging and which we all agreed was necessary for the world’s safety from terrorism? Should we prop up the one government that prevents Al Qaeda from leaving their safe haven in Pakistan and resuming control of Afghanistan in order to plot against the West.
    Dah!!!!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  172. Lavender Larry in Gay Paree,TN.

    This is Indeed Unique Jack,
    A president who knows where the war is, not where
    it ain;t

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  173. edward fitzgerald

    There was nothing to win in Vietnam

    there is nothing to win in Iraq

    There is nothing to win in Afganistan

    Get the drift?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  174. mitchell, arkansas

    his plan is not comprehensive enough ,because it doesn't seriously address the core issue of how the enemy is funded there. they survive with funds derived from the illegal drug trade, which means they are funded by citizen's of the US and Europe who buy the drugs, the President's flippant response to the marijuana issue yesterday, could have been turned into an opportunity to at least 'open' the dialogue on the failures of prohibition and the drug trade. until he is willing to be serious about this, these crises will not go away.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  175. Bob in Houston, TX

    Jack, there's an old Archie cartoon where Jughead is searching the ground under a street lamp. Archie asks, "so where did you loose your keys?" "Over there." Jughead responds. "So, why are you looking here?" Archie asks. "Because the lights better," Jughead responds.

    The enemy doesn't reside in Afganistan or Pakistan, and never really did. The enemy resides in the mosques and palaces of Saudi Arabia and Syria. It is the wealthy Saudi's who bank-rolled 911 that are the real enemy and that's who we should be going after. Bin Laden et. al. are just figureheads-stooges. Let's get the real enemy.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  176. Charles Klein

    No. The entire middle east is a trap.
    Didn't we get out of North Korea, Vietman, Iran (1st gulf war), etc without "winning" those wars? How is this different?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  177. Matthew, Tuscaloosa

    It's where the troops should have been for the last 8 years. If we'd stayed and fought the war of necessity instead of going into a war of choice we would be in a much stronger position, Afghanistan would be in a stronger position and our government would have more money in the coffers to deal with the financial crisis. Though if ifs and ands were pots and pans... as it stands we need to ensure the real enemy is finally dealt with.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  178. Mickey

    For what?! Don't we have enough of our men there? The millions we sent over there was not enough then and the small force of 4,000 won't do anything at all.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  179. karen-phoenix

    What President Obama is doing is what SHOULD have been done six years ago!!! We need people in their that will teach agriculture, reading, writing. Read "Three Cups of Tea"!!! Obama knows what he is doing. Just too bad it took the rest of us six years to realize what needed to be done!!!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  180. Soldier

    Jack: In response to John Webster's comment "Troops Scare and Doctors Care", Mr. Webster you are totally wrong, As a solider I'm insulted by your comment. Soldiers train to make a difference and it affects Soldier alot more than you know to kill someone, we dont want to do it, it sucks. We are Loving and CARING people also, we have families and kids too. Behind the rifle and bullet proof vests, we are humans too. I beleive Obama is doing what he thinks the the right choice. Thanks.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  181. David /Indianapolis

    Jack I dont really like sending more troops in but the fact is we were careless getting in so we need to be even smarter getting out what really worries me is will this ever end that's what scares me the most

    March 27, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  182. John, SF

    The US has now warring in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and operating in Iran, 4 Middle Eastern countries. The Iraq war has been a mistake to begin with in the first place. Before the Iraq war, the US had bombed Afghanistan to stone age already, Daily there were villages at weddings or some festivals killed either by mistake or no mistake. How bigger a war does the US want to expand in Afghanistan, or other Muslim countries?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  183. Tom in CA

    Why don't we get an answer to a different question first, then maybe we can answer your question. What are our achievable goals? And don't tell me it's to bring Democracy to Afghanistan – there aren't enough troops we can put in there to accomplish that in any of our lifetimes.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  184. Loretta

    I voted for Barack Obama and have been very impressed with his performance thus far, however, I am in complete disagreement with his decision to send more troops into Afghanistan. What turned me against former president George Bush was his decision to invade Iraq. We are the invaders, interlopers not the liberators. We have no business being in the Middle East. Reverse the situation and envision troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in our backyards breaking down our doors and killing our innocent men, women and children.
    Unfortunately with politicians, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  185. Eva Fotis

    Finally, someone has the guts to do what should have been done 7 1/2 years ago. Obama realizes that this conflict will end as soon as bin Laden is stopped. Bush was right to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. He just got too big for his britches when he invaded Iraq!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  186. Matt DiGiaimo New Bern

    Jack

    No, No a thousand times no. Does anyone realize that the deaths in Afganistan far outnumber those in Iraq. Deaths of Americans are increasing on a month to month rate for the last 2 years.

    We went in to fight El Quiada not the Taliban who we put in power to fight and drive out the Russians. Send Laura Bush there again to come back with stories about all the Afganistan women are being educated. On the other hand, that might be a good project for Michelle Obama.

    Matt

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  187. Lisa in Illinois

    I think more than the troops going I am ticked that we have decided to send $1.5 billion more per year for the next five years. Between the money going to gaza and the Iraq war and now this. I'd like to know one thing.....where are we getting the money for all of this? We don't fight wars like we used to, instead now we drag everything on for years with no end in sight. I feel sorry for all of the young kids in this country because they are going to be paying the price $$$$ for this surge in Afghanistan and Iraq and Gaza and the stimulus and the new budget. God help us all!!!!!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  188. Emil

    Absolutely. Many Americans argue that Afghanistan will be the next Vietnam; however, I disagree with that argument. Afghanistan was the taliban's safe-haven for many years. We are not fighting against radical communist idealogues. We are fighting against radical islamic terrorists who are committed to the destruction of our way of living. The United States can and must continue the ongoing campaign in Afghanistan.

    Long Island, New York.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  189. Reece Wright

    Obama is a fraud and a liar. This is not the kind of thing he was promising when he was campaigning. He's a war monger like Bush was. No CHANGE has come to America at all, has it? It's just more of the same ol' same ol' in different packaging. The only thing we can HOPE for is that he lasts only four years and doesn't do too much damage while he's at it.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  190. Jim Blevins

    Obama seems to have the right answer on almost everything, but this is the exception. Providing money for NGO's to help Afghanistan would be useful. Having American troops there causes a lot of civilian casualties and makes the Afghans hate us more. At best, Afghanistan can get its government working despite our presence and it will only cost us a few hundred billion. In worst case, it will cause a extremest government to take power and we will be their enemies for generations.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  191. Fred

    We should have sent more in years ago. Instead we sent our boys and girls off to Iraq, where well frankly we had no business. This is where the terrorists who attacked us are, so let's mount up and roll.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  192. Tom from Philly

    Well this is where we should have been in the first place, but we were diverted by darth cheeney=haliburton=KBR=lucrative no bid contracts and soldiers getting shocked to death in the shower to make more money by hiring local ineptness. Like there isnt an underemployed electrician? soldier with the knack knowhow and desire to learn?

    Its freaking simple, power on the little prong black is hot, neutral on the big prong white is cool, and ground on the rounded one that looks like a mouth or tonge depending if ur lookin at the outlet or plug commercial ground is green.

    How many soldiers could have been saved that died needlessly

    March 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  193. Ken Sanders, Vancouver, Canada

    No. But if we must .. then send many many more and get this thing over with and go home. Sending small numbers is only half-measure. For whatever reason we were there in the first place let us finish it or bring all the troops home. These Taliban fighters are the BEST. Sometimes I personally think .. give the country to them. Afghanistan is none of our business.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  194. CARY S

    we need to send the trooops to the mexico border and stop all these drug cartels from selling and influsing are kids. by waving big money in there face.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  195. Jerry

    Blow up the poppy fields via remote control using UAV's then see if we even need to go. The weapons used by UAV's are as accurate as any manned force on the ground.. and they are eyym ... unmanned, reusable and you will never have one of them showing up for duty 10 years later with 3 kids..

    March 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  196. A. Barrett, MI

    No, in two words: Vietnam and Russia. I would rather have us work on our border protection and intelligence. A quick look at the history of Afghanistan should tell anyone that winning is not possible. War with Afghanistan brought Russia to ruin. Now is the time to learn from history.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  197. Peter from Ontario

    No No No. The USA and Canada should end the occupation of Afghanistan. Staying there does nothing but win more allies to the Taliban. Demoncracy and the toppling of corrupt governments should be home-grown and come from the bottom up. By occupying Afghanistan, NATO fomenting resentment among the people and, thus, growing the Taliban's ranks. People who agree with nothing but the group's staunch fight against foreign troops, become recruits for the Taliban, who, while a repressive and disgusting regime, at least provided some stability and bureacracy to a country that has known nothing but death and destruction for years and years.

    So, rather than bringing "democracy" and "rights for women" to the Afghan people, the occupation is building support for the most regressive powers there and killing innocent civilians.

    Civilian casualities have risen by 40% in the last year and the misplaced billions spent over there could be much better served in a plethora of other areas.

    Please join me and others on April 4th in an international day of action to protest the occupation of Afghanistan and the continuing terror that NATO poses to the world. Look for local actions in your area.

    In solidarity,
    Peter

    March 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  198. Charles Farmer

    I think we would be better served by putting them on the border with Mexico. What country anywhere in the world, has unsecured borders? Then we could put a lot of unemployed veterans to work in a repatratriation program and send the 20 million illegals back to their country of origin. I am a retiree from Hamilton, Ohio

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  199. Michael Haney, Oil City, PA

    I would think American's morle would be boosted because we now know the goals for stablitiy. Then we are out. But like any springtime, we have to all plant the seeds toward that goal. I can imagine our brave warriors morle, high as all hell. Now we can get the SOBing radical, fundamentalism Bin Laden Inc. I would use the vast tracks to go. I believe in our President and the Generals. We have intelligent men and women running the war.

    We live in an open-society, probablity of another attack is bound to happen. AlL fueld by sheer hatred for the USA. Send whom ever will get us to stability.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  200. Ray,Calif

    He has no choice win or lose..Obama promised to get Bin Laden...or this will turn out to be Obama's Vietnam ??

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  201. kallis

    I am glad our president realizes that Pakistan is the epicenter of all the terrorism and we should not trust them blindly like we did in the past 8 yrs. Having a strong policy with involvement of the regional players like India and Iraq is a decent game plan which can be improvised as we move further. We all should be behind our president who looks at the "real problems" rather that beating around the BUSH....

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  202. Bill Conine

    No Jack. Enough is enough. It's time to stop being the world's police force and get serious about using our resources (financial and otherwise) to begin solving our problems here at home. Our time to deal with Afghanistan was immediately following 9/11, and we have long since squandered that opportunity. Let's not turn this into another Iraq. The last time I checked, we're still there.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  203. Malik4L

    No Jack.I think we've wasted to much money in the Iraq (so called ) war. We need to put that money towards our drowning economy. We need to stop playing high sheriff to the world and worry about our safety and security here in this country.Now I'm a full Obama supporter but I gotta leave'em hanging on this one.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  204. tbone

    Send in Tony Stark. he'll getthings done quickly.

    In all seriousness, this not something that Bush dumped in Obamas lap. The strategy all along was to take care of Iraq and then step things up in Afghanistan. The Taliban operate like cockroaches. They will aways exist, just need to minimize their numbers.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  205. Brandon

    We must have alot more $ than I thought. If I was going bankrupt on my mortgage I wouldn't be sending anyone on flights over seas. Maybe we can profit from the oil, oh no thats right. How about for moral reasons. But war can never be moral – it is force. However, the koran says to punish those who are unholy, right – but what did Jesus say about turning the cheek. I think it was something like, "if a man would take your cloak then offer your shirt too". Maybe we could do like any good parent does and lead by example. Imagine that

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  206. Maneck Bhujwala, Huntington Beach, CA

    I agree. Instead of going to Iraq we should have pursued the Taliban and Al Quaeda into Pakistan. Better late then never

    Regards
    Maneck Bhujwala

    March 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  207. CW

    You forgot to mention that Obama is asking Congress to pass a bill that will give Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars per year for the next five years. How much more money can Obama spend? This is outrageous !!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  208. Joan

    Too send more troops? All we have seen and heard the Administration and general American worry about is the casualties and post traumatic symdrom suffered by US soldiers. What about the people in these suffering countries getting daily bombarment and shot? What about the American human rights?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  209. yep

    NUCLEAR WAR...do I have to spell it for you idiots..does ANYBODY out there remember the history of USA and the history of our wars fought, there is no amount of men, women, weapons, guns, drugs, policies, aid, ass kissing that will rid our world of scum...the A-bomb scared the CRAP out of every body against us right....drop one in the near area of the 'Al Queda' 'base' and then see how they move....

    and Mexico, well ever heard of the GAZA Strip...california is next

    March 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  210. Jan Illinois

    If it were not for having troops there that probably need help, my answer would be no. The campaign swayed to the side of , I'll bring them home" I want them all home, now. Those people have been fighting for years and we will not change that, no one else has and no one else will. We should get out, just before it breaks us? If they mess with us again, make it clear that they won't be able to ever do it again and for once in our lives mean it.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  211. Umesh

    The root cause of the problems in Afghanistan is rouge military of Pakistan. Pakistani military gets US money at one hand by fooling US. On the other hand Pakistani army then gives arms, logistical and recruiment support to Taliban to fight US and NATO troops. It is the truth, however hard Pakistan denies about it. Pakistani army is not under control of its civilian government and thinks the terrorists as its "strategic assets". So unless Pakistani military is held accountable and brought under control, no matter how many troops or money we throw at it, things won't change.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  212. Warren Plocharsky,Heppner Or

    BIG mistake. The mighty Soviet army left with its tail between its legs. Why would we think we could do any better?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  213. mitchell, arkansas

    nevermind! it went through, today! thank you, moderators!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  214. Ken

    Barack Obama appears determined to take up the important job that George Bush abandoned in Afghannistan when he chose to start a war in Iraq, a war he could not justify without fictionalizing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In doing so, he gave Al-Qaeda a new training ground and Islamist extremists all over the world a new reason to despise America. Obama seems intent on righting the wrongs of his predecessor, and for that I support him.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  215. Spencer, Chicago Illinois

    I guess so. Does anyone have a better idea?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  216. Rayshaun H.- New York

    Yes Jack We should send more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan if the intelligence reports suggest that the terrorists have reconstituted there. We cannot let the disaster and distraction that is Iraq distract us from pursuing the locations where the terrorists really came from.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  217. Arif, Muhammad

    Jack, the US government is waisting the lives and money of americans and others in Afghanistan. I am from that area but now Canadian citizen, I know it is impossible to win on either side of Durand Line as they are the hardest people of the hard. They born with guns fires and trained like a soldure at age 15. So I have a simple suggestion for the US and ofcourse for Canada to solve the Plastine-Israil dispute. The key is in the middleast. No matter what Obama do it will make no difference. Look at Rusia the than USSR because wisemen take lessons from others.

    Arif, Cambridge, Ontario

    March 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  218. Vernis Robertson

    Just think if the U.S would have sent Troops to Afghanistan in the first place we would not be having this conversation. Thanks Bush .

    March 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  219. Ismael@Seattle

    I think we need to send troops so we can help them build and train their troops so they fight off the terrorist in their country.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  220. Douglas

    ABSOLUTELY NO MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN!

    How long will it take the USA to finally learn that sending US troops to the Middle East is a frivoulous adventure. How many more of our young kids have to lose their lives or be maimed before we wake up to the facts?

    PULL OUT! Bring em' home!

    NOW!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  221. Dave B. - Schaumburg, IL

    If we're not going to use our military along our southern boarder, then yes, we should utilize them in Afghanistan. We should saturate that area
    and use whatever means possible to help eliminate all threats from that
    region once and for all!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  222. Lloyd

    Absolutely not! Far too many young American lives have already been lost trying to protect a people who in reality hate America. America needs to get its priorities straight and first get its own house in order before trying to rebuild the houses of others, especially in places where we are not even welcome. Dialog is the only way to peace. War solves nothing. It never has. And it never will.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  223. Steve, Clifton,VA

    Additional troops in Afghanistan are an absolute necessity now as a result of the U.S taking it's eye off the ball immediately after 9the 911
    attacks on the U.S. Because we failed to accomplish our original mission in Afghanistan and was distracted by Iraq and the situation in Afghanistan escalated to a conflict which has expanded from a mission focused on concentrated areas in Afghanistan to multiple concentrations of enemy activity in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, subsequently it will take more troops to accomplish our mission. So, more troops yes but conditioned on a clear and definitive mission which can be articulated to the American people and accompanied by a clear and definitive exit strategy....

    Steve
    Clifton,VA
    Clifton, VA

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  224. Marc Taylor in Kansas City

    Jack,

    Yes, but please do not compare what he is doing to the previous administration's "surge". We too often talk only about troop counts and leave out the "total strategy" it takes to really accomplish what needs to be done. This is consistent with what Obama and others have said needed to be done all along. More troops with help in rebuilding the country and people and a focused Pakistan effort to eliminate the escape route, and we just might get it done.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  225. Candy

    You don't make additional commitments without defining what the eventual 'victory' means, and without a well-documented exit-strategy. Obama is getting advice from the wrong crowd. The sequence of recent foreign matter-related events does not give comfort to this previous Obama supporter: Clinton as S of S, Charles Freeman incident, and this. Looks like we're still deeply committed to fighting another country's wars even as we struggle mightily to get out of an economic crisis.

    Obama will surely live to regret his decision.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  226. Sheila C AR.

    Yes, I support this president and trust his judgment. Send the troops to Afghanistan and for God sakes fight to win. Then try to win those hearts and minds. Food, education and medical care would win plenty of hearts.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  227. Len. Grass valley CA

    While agreeing with others that we have an obligation to sort out the Bush mess if history is any guide then we are doomed to fail in Afganistan. No country has ever won a war on Afgan soil.

    Len.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  228. Kevin

    Sure Jack, we need to stabilize the region so we can stimulate their economy again and keep the heroin trade healthy. Hope this is not another addicted GI saga like vietnam. Even with our technical advancements it will still be a war using troops with conventional weapons.

    Kevin
    Warren, MI

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  229. Larena

    Jack how funny the Republicans. are not complaining about Pres. Obama doing to much. I would have thought that they might say he cant focus on the war in Afghan and the economy. I have a new name for him the guy who could multitask

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  230. roger

    I thought that Obama ran for President on the premise off bringing all combative troops home?
    Thanks God he he lied!!!

    ....and now that we've won the war in Iraq and helped established a young democracy in the hot-bed of the world, will our troops get a hero's welcome with ticker tape parades and Bush praised for freeing so many people from bondage?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  231. calvin wilson

    No more trooops to the middle east or any other part of the world. also, Obama's spending spree skhould be shut down except for necessities within the four-corners of the authority in the "almost dead" constitution.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  232. Tim from Coronado, Ca

    Yes Jack, Time to finish the job that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld FAILED to do.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  233. Matt

    No, We should bring the troop home like Obama "promised" when he was campaigning for the presidency.

    Plus look at the evidence surrounding 9/11...not even the FBI can charge Bin Laden with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence of his actions.

    But there is PLENTY of evidence suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Wake up America. "The War On Terror" is a hoax.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  234. Sarah

    After years of hearing about why the Iraq war was such a waste because there were no WMDs (despite the fact that there actually were chemical warheads) and thus Iraq couldn't have been an immediate threat to us, I am wondering why the anti-war crowd has changed its tune. Does Afghanistan have WMDs? Is Afghanistan a direct and immediate threat to us? Are the terrorists there more worthy of our attention than the hundreds or thousands we captured or killed in Iraq?

    Sadly it appears that so many have changed their tune not because of a change in circumstances, but because of a change in political party.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  235. Jim

    Here we go down the yellow brick road. What is a more moderate Taliban? There is no such person! They are all radical extremists, and until we accept that and try to eliminate them and their poppy fields we will be in for a long drawn out conflict. Think Korea where ultimately a line was drawn and the peace loving people were on one side of the line, and the draconian dictatorial extremists were on the other side. Keep in mind, the attitude of the groups has not changed since the line has been drawn.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  236. Tina Brush

    No......I now have a NEW window sticker on my car that says "Out of Iraq now". He PROMISED to bring our troops home within months after elected, but now he is saying not until Aug of 2010, will he even start. I voted for him and still am with him; however, I am not happy about Iraq and I am afraid this new front in Afghanista will be much worse than Iraq ever was!
    tina
    Oregon

    March 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  237. Boyd, Wisconsin

    It's doubtful we will ever win a war there, but we should be trying to win the peace. I agree that we should be sending doctors, engineers, teachers, agricultural specialists, etc. to improve their lives and give them a positive alternative to the Taliban and Al Queda. We should largely only use troops there as needed to protect our people and theirs. We will likely never find Bin Laden with an army, but we might find him with a covert action, once we've become friends with their people, and have their trust.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  238. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    I agree we should send more troops into Afghanistan but how many ,is the question, 17,000 may not be enough. Al Qaeda has had 8 years to grow stronger in numbers and it will be difficult to take them down if we don't have enough troops available.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  239. Darrick H.

    Jack,

    It is becoming more and more obvious that President Obama wants Osama bin Laden's head and so do I. It is time to conquer the unconquerable Afghanistan and to put pressure on the Pakistani government to reform.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  240. Noah from Sumter, SC

    Absolutely! The sooner we put more troops on the ground and airpower in the sky, the sooner we can close the chapter on this operation. If we hesitate to reinforce Afghanistan with more resources soon, we may still be fighting this war decades from now. And I’d rather not have my 2 year-old son suiting up to fight the same war when he gets old enough to. Let’s end this thing.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  241. Steffan

    What we have to understand is that on September 11th, 2001 3000 people died in a blatant terrorist attack on American soil. Somewhere between then and now we ended up in IRAQ: a country that was proven to have NO ties to Al Qaeda or the attacks! I hope that our former president can at least see how his actions APPEARED us who have lost friends and/or family in the "War on Terror": 9/11 was just an excuse to get into IRAQ! Think about it, if we can find Saddam Husein in a HOLE, why couldn't those responsible for the 9/11 attacks been brought to justice. Especially when we (the American people) believe that Osama bin Laden's whereabouts is known. Didn't take President Obama long to acknowledge, basically, that we do. How can our former regime look themselves in the mirror everyday with all of this unecessary bloodshed on THEIR HANDS! Go get 'em President Obama!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  242. Steve

    Of course. We should have done this 7 1/2 years ago. How could Bush say he was fighting the Global War On Terror (GWOT) in Iraq? What a farce! Bush invaded Iraq so his rich oil buddies could get even richer. I'm sure he would consider his presidency an overwhelming success. I am glad we now have a President who is focusing on the issues that will have a positive impact on our lives.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  243. Terry

    No Jack. We have our own problems at home. We have wasted enough money on these "wars". First Iraq – then Afghanistan and now we are also adding Pakistan to the list? This never-ending war policy needs to stop.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  244. Henry, Miami Beach, FL

    Jack,

    I hate to say it, but we lost both our chance to find Osama bin Laden (hey, remember him?) and save Afghanistan when Pres. Bush decided to invade Iraq.

    In that 6 years, the Afghan government under Pres. Karzai has systematically looted their country and is one of the most corrupt in the world. The people there don't see much alternative to the Taliban, and I don't see how 17,000 more men will turn the tide given Afghan government unpopularity..

    Unless the new troops are going to operate in Pakistan, moreover, we'll never get Osama.And we haven't heard that will happen.

    Note that Pres. Obama nenver even MENTIONS finding Osama .

    Taliban controls almost 90 % of the country. Here' s how it will play out : a bunch of American and Candians get killed, the Afghan government will still fall. The Afghanis who plundered their own country will probably come to the U.S set for life, thanks to the protection of U.S. troops who will die for them.

    It's a mug's game man.

    I'm against sacrificing a single U.S. life for the Afghanis unless a campaign to find OBL is the main point, and that isn't happening.
    Please! no more dead and broken American lives to save what isn't worth saving.

    Support our tropps- write your Congressman/woman and tell them to bring ther troops home NOW.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  245. Janine from Milwaukee wi

    Yes Jack we need more troops in Afghanistan! We have waited long enough to catch up to Bin Laden and to weaken the Taliban. My son is on his 2nd tour over there and while they are seeing improvements, the main mission has not yet been achieved due to the lack of forces in strategic areas. It's time for Obama to finish what Bush started....

    March 27, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  246. Kip

    Yes! We should , it's where our past President started this mess. Maybe President Obama is starting the withdrawl of troops in Iraq via Afganistan and finally taking care of the Taliban on the way home....

    March 27, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  247. Debugger

    It would be better to send the troops to Palestine/Israel to control the power hunger blood thirsty fascist regime building and stop the carnage and humiliation of the original citizens prior to '48. Disarm both Israel and Palestine, get our boys and girls out of Iraq and Afghanistan then rest of the Middle East will have peace!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  248. Hap

    No Jack. He promised change and this is a continuation of Bush policies just like Iraq. This is disappointing and he should not send troops.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  249. Michelle El Paso Texas

    My Question is? Is it that hard to call President Obama, by his name President Obama ? I am hearing Mr. Obama. I do not recall hearing the Media or Republicans calling Former President Bush, Mr. Bush or Former President Clinton, Mr. Clinton. Is this out of being spiteful. I would appreciate if this could be a question for the Cafferty Files.

    Thank You.
    Michelle El Paso, Texas

    March 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  250. BH

    Unfortunately, sending troops in necessary but paying Pakistan 7 billion dollars will ensure a lot of american will die.

    Pakistan is not going to stop funding the talibans.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  251. James In Idaho

    Afghanistan is the only legitimate place for U.S. troops to be right now, and it should have been that way since the beginning, alongside Pakistan. We had them nearly surrounded at one time, and we should have remained vigilant to get Bin Laden. Instead of gaining honor in the world by keeping our heads in the game and our eyes on the prize, Bush opted to go to Iraq, missing an 'N' for a 'Q' in the process, and forced our troops to now fight to regain the honor that was lost for his decisions.
    This may eb the only way to regain some of that honor.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  252. Dave in Arizona

    Sending our countrymen into danger is never a decision that should be taken lightly and it's our duty to ensure that the risk we put them in is for not only a righteous a cause – even Iraq was that – but one also supported by the international community from which we find allies.

    The battle against al Qaeda is one we have allies in. It's one that serves to protect not only us, but them. It's one we can fight without the same temptations for personal gain that Iraq presented. From a global perspective it's a cause worth fighting for, and therefor I support all endeavors made to strengthen our hand there.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  253. Bob

    Afghanistan will NEVER be won militarily. The best approach is TOUGH diplomacy engaging the region and maybe Europe. A hard line needs to be drawn with Pakistan. No arms or money unless they work toward the mutual interest. The troops should come home as soon as possible within this context.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  254. John - Houston, TX

    Dear Jack,
    If the European countries don't spend a dime with Afghanistan and it's problems, and they are way closer to them than us, why should we do that? They can not rich us by land. They can not attack us by air (we can defend our self from that). So why should we care more than Europe cares? What about using that money to protect our border with Mexico and prevent them to smuggled more drugs that are destroying so many families HERE in America? Or rebuild our infra-structure ? Oh... What a bunch of naive we are...That would be to expect to much from our government...

    March 27, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  255. Steve in VA

    Nevermind the fact that he promised to reduce troop levels in both Afghanistan and Iraq in his campaign speeches... suddenly, when he decides to try a surge of his own, its a good idea? Sheep, all of you.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  256. Ray

    No, I bet we will be there for the next 4 years. I agree with the comment list above. We don't have $755,000 Per Soldier per year to spend eventfully inflation is going to kill the dollar and I know smarter people know this is going to happen. Jack, Obama should be ask other countries to send troops into Afganistan.

    There was nothing to win in Vietnam

    there is nothing to win in Iraq

    There is nothing to win in Afganistan

    Get the drift?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  257. Edward T.

    Jack,

    Afghanistan has never been conquered by a foreign military. The Soviets bankrupted themselves by going there

    March 27, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  258. Mike S, NYC

    Jack, we need to kill Osama Bin Laden once and for all. After 9/11 we recognized the US was not safe from terrorist threats and went after that organization's mastermind. We made progress in that country, only to have Bush sidetrack that mission by trying to finish what his father started in Iraq, all under the guise of Homeland Security. Relieving the pressure on Al Qaeda was one of the worst things we could have done. Now we need to refocus our efforts of rooting out terrorism and terrorist organizations with the help of other countries. Not just by bringing in the military, but other organizations dedicated to putting that country on the path to Democratic self-reliance. Cut poppy production and sales of that illicit drug and show them they can rely on other crops to make money off of. If we can win the hearts and minds of those Middle Eastern nations, while eliminating terrorist threats, our goals will be accomplished not just in the short term but the long term.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  259. Mike

    The greatest threat to the Mideast and maybe the world's security are the nukes that Pakistan has. If Al Qaeda or the Taliban ever got their hands on them you can say good-bye to the safety of the world.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  260. L. Jordan

    No! We should absolutely not send more troops to Afghanistan, Jack. After occupying it for 8 yrs., the money we've already spent there could've helped Americans here. Why isn't anybody talking about the oil pipeline? It's still blood for oil; just like Iraq. Bring our troops home and let other countries help out with international economic aid. Nobody's ever "won" in Afghanistan. The British pulled out before it broke them so many decades ago. The Russians were so badly hurt by their occupation that it was the final destruction of their country. The only people making money off Afghanistan are the "NO-BID-COST-PLUS MERCENARY CONTRACTORS". Let's get them out first.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  261. Bobby in Florida

    Send the army were it is needed the most. Own our borders Arizona, California, Texas, anywhere that borders Mexico. Stop all the illegal from entering our country. As well stop the drugs. Help Afghanistan to train the Afghan Army and police only. Our troops shouild not die for this country no more. It is time to protect the USA only.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  262. Sue

    My husband is serving as part of Operation Phoenix. He is already disabled by the conditions he has had to serve under and will be exposed to more very shortly. He doesn't see how our troop's presence has made a difference other than improving the immediate community's economy ( soldiers buying local goods). The country is desolate and rugged and the people do not want sanitation and medicine or education. They want to be left alone to live as they have lived for centuries without Westernization, without druglords and without Al Quaeda. The more we do the more they will resist. My husband and I support Obama but we wish he would consider alternatives to American intervention.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  263. brent

    NO!! Hasn"t anyone learned anything fron Vietnam or Iraq yet? If a problen can't be resived frim the air–STAY OUT!! $1.5 B a year is like putting the entire country on welfare including the narcotics farmers and the corrupt politicians. If Obama wants to run Afganistan he needs to quit his present job and relocate.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  264. kirk1962

    NOBODY is untouchable not even Osama Bin Laden. We've been hunting Bin laden for how many years now? What happens if we kill him? Nothing other then a terrorist leader dies while 1000 emerge. Bring our troops home to defend our borders. I would rather see 35,000 U.S troops working our ports and borders to keep the bad guys out. We have the people to secure our borders. What we don't have are government officials smart enough to realize this. Don't be fooled by the lure of us hunting the Tali-ban. We are STILL hunting Osama bin Laden. Make no mistake.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  265. Brandon

    Sending 17,000 would make a somewhat noticable differance, but a differance is a good thing of course.so why not. Besides that what about all of the polls, I dont care who you think is winning, You should support them 100% . Insted of complaning about this we should go there and volenter ourselfs.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  266. johnathan steil

    If the United States is serious about the war on terror and going after Osama Bin Ladin then Obama should issue letters of marque and reprisal to go after the bad guys instead of bankrupting us even more into a war we wern't serious about in the first place.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  267. Sandra

    Ron Paul was the only one with a foreign policy of CHANGE. It's funny how this war is suddenly reasonable now that its good for pop culture.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  268. Kip

    Yes, President Obama is cleaning up Bushes mess. We are now bringing our troops home via Afganistan and taking care of the Taliban on the way! Jack, I wish the right would quit whinning and just admit that George W Bush will go down as the worst President in our history.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  269. John

    Warren, there is a huge difference between now and the Soviets.
    First, we trained BinLaden and others how to fight in their adaptive style...and we provided them with arms.
    Second, the soviets were trying to conquer...we are trying to remove a threat, and let the people govern themselves.
    Third, the soviets were doing it alone...and at the end, we (and all of Europe) abandoned Afghanistan...leaving them to be taken over by the extremists that we taught how to fight in the first place... Now we (and Europe) are going in, and have promised to stay until they are able to stand on their own.

    While I agree with others that we need to send a caring arm too (doctors, teachers, etc), the root of the problem is the thinking in the middle east. Unfortunately, it's one where women have little to no value, and it does have a very wild west style of government...so it's hard to teach democracy and get the powers that be to actually agree to it.

    Either way, we are there for the long haul...and we need to do what is best for the protection of our troops, the destruction of al quada, and the well being of the Afghan people.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  270. jim ga

    excellent idea more troops to finish the job so our troops can come home sooner bad idea lets stop telegraphing to our enemies that we are on the way

    March 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  271. Joe from Raleigh, NC

    I'm confused! Is Obama trying to do what Alexander the Great and the British were unable to do in Afghanistan, or is he just trying to keep an illusion of toughness through the next election? This is just the kind of investment a bankrupt country needs to make! What about that great campaign line about not digging when you find yourself in a whole. Barack! Listen to your Vice President! I shoulda voted for the other guy.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  272. Clayton Campbell

    No, more troups and money will only continue our slide into the post-America era. Historically all attempts by Western nations to enforce their military will on Afghanistan has ended in defeat. This is a culture, whether we like it or not, which is different, complex, and beyond our Western/Christian values to fully appreciate and/or understand.
    We are risking thousands of more lives and many billions of dollars for a threat of terror which I believe is overstated. There is no concrete proof, like with WMD's in Iraq, that Al Qaeda can do anything outside of Pakistan. Much more likely are threats from organized cells which have arisen in reaction to our support of oppressive regimes like the Saudi's. The real Al Qaeda threat is now a global proposition and cannot be defeated or neutralized with conventional wars in which we squander of small amount of remaining capital, both financial, political, and moral.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  273. Mike

    Look at all the dems that can't agree with each other. I thought the war on terror was over in the minds of the leftward thinkers. I think Obama wants to add one more thing to a socialist agenda that draws attention away from his full plate and poor decisions.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  274. J.Jarvis, outside Houston, TX

    YES, YES, YES! It is where we should have been for the last 7 years. With all the money wasted in Iraq, we could have helped build a totally new free, producing, educating, globally involved nation by now.
    I say – Go for it.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  275. BobbyD

    I strongly feel that our work in Afghanistan is a losing proposition. I agree that al-Qaida is our enemy, and that America needs to take the fight to our enemy. Afghanistan is not the right battleground for us to take the fight to. It is a land locked country with bording countries with shifting alligences. The US can not carry on a sustained campaign as we did in Iraq without expending a great amount of national treasure. Further, the country/society of Afghanistan is beyond redemption. Their political infrastructure is massively corrupt, hasheesh is their main economic export, and they have class issues that are so problematic that the average American can not even come close to relating to. I say pull our troops out and find a better battle ground.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  276. Ron

    John from Vancouver Canada,

    I agree with your statement that winning hearts and minds with teachers, doctors, engineers, etc is the right course of action. The only problem is how long do you think they will stay if we don't have soldiers to protect them from the resurrging taliban? These people have no qualms about killing and maiming little girls for going to school. No way could we send professionals over there without additional protection.

    You can't have one without the other and succeed. I believe that is what Obama's plan calls for.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  277. Melvin Lopez

    Yes, we should send more troops but with the help of others. Lets not forget that we do live in the best country in the world and we are the top dogs. Some say that Bush left us this mess. I disagree. Bush tried to fix this as best as he could. Monkey see, Monkey do! Meaning everyone waits for the U.S.A to do something before they will. I think Obama will get the help he is asking for but I'm pretty sure the moochers will want something in return.I guess safety isnt enough.
    Don't we have bombs that change the appearence of land.Not using nukes. Lets flattend some of the mountain and bury these terrorist. LONG LIVE THE U.S.A TROOPS

    March 27, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  278. pete logue

    More troops are needed, but only after we take them out og Iraq and bring them home to rest for awhile. Constant deplyment diminishes morale and effectivness. I know after 24 years in the USMC

    March 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  279. Cody New Jersey

    Straight froward, no. Once again, it is not our problem. Haven't we done enough in the middle east? I see no reason in continuing what we started.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  280. j/NJ

    Should the U.S. send additional troops to Afghanistan?

    Not a black and white issue by any means, the appropriate time may have past...unfortunately the only way America can prevail in Afghanistan is by a full scale military invasion, that will take many contentious years of nation building which should not be a part of the administration's agenda...if that happens America cannot possibly win anything...

    March 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  281. Mel, Portland Oregon

    I agree with Sandra, funny how it's okay for Obama to say he's sending more troops but not for Bush. Bush was a warmonger and worse. And before you left-wingers go all ballistic on me I have 2 boys who are currently and proudly serving their country.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  282. Jack Phoenix, AZ

    I think he is making a huge mistake. We need to mind our own business and stay out of world affairs. I don't want to see one more service person die for a bunch of deadbeat sand beggars. Let's call them all home and develop our own WMD so our troops don't have to die.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  283. orion

    Jack,i just don't get it why we have to tell our enemies how many troops we sending or do this do that why don't we keep it secret and make them surprise.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  284. Cam

    More U S troops are needed. Needed, to hold area cleared of Taliban so they don't just come back. Glad to hear of the "civilian surge" as well. We are not fighting an army, but an ideal. Wining there will take more than guns. I am hopeful of change in the up coming Afghan elections. Looking forward to the end of the Canadian mission in 2011. Until then Canadian boys will continue to do what they trained for. Time for other NATO nations to step up so Canada can stand down.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  285. C Alexander Morrison

    Out of sheer necessity, eventhuogh it's eight years late, thousands of precious lives lost, and untold billions squandered in Iraq, if the free world doubt the intent of our Arab extreamist when they have pledged to have the world's population bowing to Alah or die, think again.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  286. Alan, Nevada

    For those who agree with President Obama, please show your support for the plan by enlisting in the military. In the coming years, we will certainly need more troops to conitinue the fight. If you are not willing to enlist in the military to fight in Afghanistan, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your support of President Obama's plan.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  287. Lynyrd

    No matter where were at ,, "100miles in the middle of the desert for instants,, there going to come and kill us no matter what or try to!! (Al Qaeda,Pakistan Iraqies,), We have the spy planes or( DRONES )that are unmanned that can find these ppl , and takeTHEM OUT!!!! ,,With out jeopardizing our troops on the ground .. were suppose to have the capablity to do this. The middle east does not like us,,!!!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  288. Tom - Tampa FL

    Whoa Nellie! I'm truly humbled by all these military experts. Including the guy that says the war on terror is a hoax. All I can say is God help us.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  289. Bob

    Korea, Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan. How many American lives were lost? How many Americans were injured or permanently disabled? How many billions of dollars did we waste? The last war we fought in that we needed to get into was World War II. Ever since then, our governments have involved us in military blunders that have cost us dearly. Tracking down Bin Laden and his group does not require that we fight a big war in a vast nation such as Afghanistan.Our government has been spending huge amounts of our money on wars that are not necessary, huge gifts of money to big financial institutions, and debt that will cost us in taxes and inflation for many years. These are some of the main reasons for the long-term economic decline of the middle class and of our nation.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  290. Aaron - California

    The difference between this administration and the previous is that at least when Obama sends troops in he has a specific plan for what our strategy is. That could help, but you have to remember the Russians did a lot more to help build up the country and they still failed miserably. I'd like to give our new administration the benefit of the doubt, but living in California which is on the brink of government collapse I think the money being spent around the world could be put to much better use right here at home. It would be nice if our new administration could bring peace to Afghanistan, but it would also be nice if a fat guy in a red suit would bring me presents every winter. We have to be a little realistic!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  291. Mike

    Right. I don't want war any more either, but this is the good fight. And whether the American public realizes it or not this war is not only winnable but if we give it the same priority that Iraq received in terms of troops and resources, security will be established and the situation stabilized for Afghanistan to carry on...and only then should we go home. I've spent 2.5years in Afghanistan and hated being away from my family, my little boys. But what I would have hated even worse is giving up on a mission that has at its roots the source of an attack on our home land. And this isn't a naive assessment. The hijackers trained in Afghanistan, it is an established fact. Counterinsurgencies require incredible national commitment because they take a long time to bring to successful conclusion. But when the right combination of resources, troops, national will and host country commitment are in place...it is only a matter of time before order is restored and the forces can return home. The Afghan people hate/hate the Taliban because even now when the hearts, minds, trust and confidence of the people are what is at issue, the Taliban are still using intimidation, scare tactics and murder to force cooperation. This is the reason why the Taliban will fail. But the turn around will not come in Kabul, it will come in the rural countryside and in the mountains of the Hindu Kush where our soldiers and marines will be walking, stalking the taliban. President Obama deserves our patience as a nation. This is the good fight.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  292. Ralph Spoilsports

    Poppycock!
    Soldiers training an Afghan Army that has NO INTEREST whatsoever in supporting the US!
    English Intelligence declared the war unwinnable just a few months back. And would someone tell me exactly why we are at war with the Taliban?
    Forget training the troops, do like we did in Iraq and PAY THE INSURGENTS to stop shooting at us. Duh!
    Obama can't seem to make up his mind where to waste his money first; with the expansion of Empire (over 700 bases overseas and rising), or with his banker buddies back home.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  293. Kim in Dodge City, KS

    The Mid-East is a hopeless cause of historic porportions, and even if no one will admit it, we know it to be the truth that these people and their archaic cultures are never going to embrace common sense or logic. The sooner we leave the better, and they can go back to chosing their own destiny, which is to maintain a strangle-hold on failure.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  294. Gerry

    No more troops.... more troops deployed means more body bags will come home... no foreign countries will ever win in Afghanistan. Study the history and stop repeating the same mistakes.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  295. Nancy, Tennessee

    If I were President, all the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would be coming home as soon as we could safely remove them from the countries. President Obama is not living up to his campaign speeches that indicated we would be out of these countries. He, also, spoke of diplomacy with places like Pakistan. Obama's military strategists have lured him away from doing the will of the people who elected him. He needs to get a second opinion.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  296. Kevin

    I agree with Keith from Cleveland – check with the Russians & do the same thing. The Russians were embarrassed & defeated by the Afghans & eventually left. Why are we still pretending to be chasing bin Laden? Get our troops out of the mid-East! This is similar to the justifications used to move into Iraq. Stop it now.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  297. skeptic

    No matter how many troops are send there, we will never win. Kinda life Vietnam, you can't win if you can't tell the difference between the enemy and the good guys. The Russians can tell you that also. Ten years and they also lost. Without undersanding the dynamics of the country or people we are doomed to fail. Power alone will not win.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  298. Dan in the Rocc

    Oh my, oh my! This is not going to work. It's a show war for the folks at home. Obama is doing what Bush did and is fooling us into more death and destruction. What are we going to do? Bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age? Nuke the Taliban? This is totally flawed thinking...Obama is doing exactly what Kennedy did when he continued the War in Vietnam after Eisenhower term. It's a lost cause and we are throwing an exhausted army at an emboldened foe. Bush blew this big time and Obama seems to be trying to show, 'Now I'll show you how it's done'. Something that has been lost in this chest pounding is 'How we gonna pay for this?' Ain't no oil to steal and u can't force people to live like us. Nobody in the United States has learned the lessons of History.
    Time to retrench, pull back and try and save our Republic before it collaspes in one huge pile of twisted metal and exhausted finances. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to admit when he’s been beaten then to use your son’s and daughter’s as fodder to even a score.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  299. Bill

    What is the objective? To "win" the fantasy "War on terror"? You can't win an imaginary game. Nobody ever declares an overt war on evil, crime, immorality, exploitation, poverty or sadness. Let alone win it.

    But if the purpose is to hit OBL or actual terrorist camps and render them null or powerless, yes that could be achieved with intelligence and precision strikes – air and ground assaults. Americans are so gung-ho on myopia so as to assume terror and evil are synonymous with "OBL", "Al-Qaeda" or Afghanistan. These are prominent symptoms of deep problems.

    You couldn't take out Al Capone and expect mafia crime to end. The only effective option against crime was grass-roots work among poor sections of society empowering them. Likewise with terror. Send doctors, teachers rather than troops. Build schools, hospitals, roads, canals, wells & crops. Thats the right way to fight a war on terror, crime, poverty and evil.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  300. Jerry Hatley

    Sending more troops to Afghanistan is probably a good idea but why is the United States sending more troops? Where are the other countries that have an interest in dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am not happy with the fact that we are spending more money in a country where corruption is running wild. NATO countries are tired of wasting their money in Afghanistan based on recent donor fatigue figures. I heartly agree with L. Jordan, the priority for our dollars is to stay within our borders. If we are going to waste money, waste it on our own economy. I am thoroughly fed up with how the Government spends the middle class (TAX PAYERS) money. For once let me decide where my money is going. Let other countries foot the bill and put their money in this bottomless pit.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  301. mimi

    As I recall, this President was going to end the war very quickly - END WAR AND BRING TROOPS HOME IMMEDIATELY.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  302. mimi

    As I recall, this President was going to end the war very quickly - END WAR AND BRING TROOPS HOME IMMEDIATELY. So what is going on here - he won because he would not go to war like Bush did - oh no, no more war. Bring all those troops home quickly. What exactly is going on??????

    March 27, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  303. Justin

    Funny how "I will bring the troops home IMMEDIATELY" graduated into "we'll probably keep troops in Iraq for at least another year or two" and now has earned it's PHD in "let's ramp up with more troops in Afghanistan".

    Isn't it amazing how perception on diplomacy versus force changes when you're sitting behind the desk you lied your way into?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  304. K. Alexander

    Let's not lose sight of something important. Going after bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was only a "tangential" reason (read: "acceptable excuse") for sending troops to Afghanistan. Let's not even *talk* about the Taliban. Remember when they (the Taliban) were called the "Mujahadeen," and they were our pals and we armed them to the teeth because they were fighting the Russian invaders (1979-1989)? So now we're experiencing what old CIA and NSA hands call "blowback" (read: unintended consequences). So, after seven years, we HAVEN'T killed or captured a six-foot-plus Arab who needs regular kidney dialysis; we've killed a horrific number of our own and allied forces with "friendly fire"; The Taliban "warlords" are the world's biggest source of opium poppies (educating women and drinking alcohol is a sin–selling dope is OK, though).

    Oh yes "the important thing" I mentioned? This whole mess was basically about getting rights to build an OIL PIPELINE (the West's Drug-of-Choice) from Central Asia (Uzbekistan) across Afghanistan, folks. Many of us are suckers for the Three-Card-Monte, evidently.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  305. kay

    Get out and get out now! Terroism is not a country. it is a "group think" found all over the world.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  306. Dave Felton

    No, he shouldn't send more troops. My question to everyone is this: What if it were President Bush sending these troops? Would 60-something percent support this decision, just because he said Al-CIAda is planning more attacks from there? Not likely. But when Obama does it, somehow we have a public rally behind him? Open your eyes, people. More troops are going to Afghanistan, and many more will be going in the months ahead. We need to hold those in Washington responsible for these decisions, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or in between.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  307. johnathan steil

    I think some of you on here that don't think we should send additional us troops into afghanistan should look into a solution that would get approval from both sides. Letters of Marque and Reprisal would allow Obama to issue "warrants" to go after certain bad guys. Private groups going after Osama Bin Ladin would be able to do allot more than what our Military would do, but would be subject to the laws of the country they are traveling in. The USA did the same thing back in our early histroy to go after pirates.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  308. OldManOnFire

    I guess this can be called change...changing from Iraq to Afghanistan??

    Since al Qaeda and Taliban are located in nearly every nation, including the USA, is this the beginning of a trend to chase terrorism around the world?

    March 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
  309. Sam

    Interesting how both the Republicans and Democrats are maintaining our foreign empire...

    Don't worry though, because in the near future our dollar will be destroyed from all the excessive printing by the Federal Reserve Bank, that we'll have not choice but to bring back our troops.

    History shows us that all empires come to end for financial reasons. Ours is no different.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  310. Bah

    Hi Jack,
    I am a fan of your show and CNN in general. First generation Muslim immigrant living in New York. I witness 9/11 right here in New York. I personally believe that the president should do what ever possible to win the war in Afghanistan. There is no doubt Al-quaida attacked us from Afghanistan. Personally I am ashamed off my Muslim brothers in Pakistan that are harboring these fanatics Wahabias (self proclaim sons of God).. How can one possibly blow up a mosque full of worshipers during a Friday? What Muslim will say to other faith, that attacks Muslim in a mosque? I main, pakistani " so called sons of Allah" just blew up 50 pple that were practicing God's work.
    Someone please tell me, this question is to Muslim scholar: Who is a "Kafir" the people that were worshiping God, or the one that blew up the pple that were worshiping God?
    I am a Muslim from West Africa, since living in the U.S I have seen a I always tried to make it to a mosque on Friday, but nothing top today's experience. That will be another topic, let just say I went to pray as a good Muslim, I was so offended by what I witness, I walked out of the mosque with out praying. Shame on people that push their political cause or hatred in the name of Islam.
    Mr. President, America trust you to protect not only Americans, but all men with good intention.
    Don't forget that American, God forbid something bad happens, Lou Doubt ( I watch him when I have the occasion, he reminds me of Europe when it comes to immigration. ouch!!) ,the republican and entire country are watching.
    Thanks.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  311. lamont barnes / fatcat1949

    yes i'm a vietnam and when your 7 or so years late sending help to the troops that sign up to get the people who did 911, but instead send i'll country best to get oil so YES!!!!send more troops and more of american support, blessings and never call a war a forgotten war again !!

    March 27, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  312. Gene, Tallahassee FL

    At a minimum President Obama should work out a plan before sending another soldier.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  313. scott oneill

    No way baby. We're never going to "kill our way to victory" in Afghanistan. The terrain is too big, mountainous, and the bottom line is we won't go into Pakistan to get the big bad Taliban, who attack and then run and hide in Pakistan. I supported the Iraq war – the idiot sadam had to go. But after that we really drug our buts thru the mud and got a lot of Americas finest kids killed by standing around and letting our boys get shot at by fighting a war politically correctly. You cant do that in Afghanistan. It will probably be another Viet Nam. When are we going to learn? Fight the war to win it,win it, and then get the hell out!!!!!! Fighting the way we have been, its going to be another slaughter of our young men and women.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  314. Marc L- West Nyack,NY

    Afghanistan is a tough place. Even the Afghan government doesn't really have control of the country as a whole. Traditionaly, the only time Afghanis unite as one is when they are fighting a foreign intrusion. Other than that, they seem to preffer regional, tribal rule. On the other hand, a lack of control on the government's part does endanger us. It is essentially a playground with no supervision for the terrorists. I think the Bush administration understood this and that is why they followed Rumsfeld's strategy of a small footprint. You can't argue that it didn't work for a while, but times have changed and a new strategy is certainly needed.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  315. Bob

    It is amazing how short sighted many Americans have become. Nation building level events take time. It takes time to see the true effects of our actions. Many will argue that Iraq was a mistake and a blunder in our War on Terror. Yet, they fail to recognize that whether it was intentional or not, Iraq became the battle ground for the War on Terror. Al Qaeda rallied thousands TO Iraq to kill Americans, but not the everyday Americans that work in an office building (i.e. WTC) they came to fight the Americans that shoot back. Our military. If we are going to fight terrorist and extremist, then commit to victory and do the fighting away from our front porches, schools, and workplaces. And above all lets make sure we fight them with the Americans that are trained to do the job. So my answer is YES!! Send in the Marines and keep the battles and casualties there, not here.

    March 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  316. Pat

    The arrogance of our federal government is astounding. We armed these people, put them up against the Soviets and now we're coming back to kill them. The casualties for this war are already too great on both sides. Let's work on securing our boarders and not on expanding our empire..

    March 27, 2009 at 6:00 pm |