[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/14/jc.08.14.war.jpg caption=" The U.S. will soon be entering the 9th year since the invasion of Afghanistan, but the war could be far from over."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. will soon be entering the 9th year since the invasion of Afghanistan, but the war could be far from over.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says it will take "a few years" to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, and larger scale success will take even longer.
Gates describes how long U.S. troops will be in the country as a "mystery" – saying there are too many variables to predict.
Variables like the Taliban – which are in control of more and more of the country. This means insurgent attacks are up. Last month, 49 coalition troops were killed in bomb attacks, up from 8 during the same time last year.
Some think more troops are the answer: There are now 62,000 U.S. troops there – with another 6,000 on the way. Gates says the top commander in Afghanistan won't be asking for more troops right now, but some expect him to eventually ask for another 10,000 troops.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $220 billion on Afghanistan since 2001 – and is now spending about $4 billion a month.
But that still may not be enough. A new Senate report paints a grim picture of the security situation in Afghanistan and makes clear that the U.S. needs to send more troops and civilians. Officials tell Senate investigators that progress in Afghanistan "if it comes" would be "incremental", talking about anywhere from 2 to 10 years.
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: Should the United States spend a "few years" in combat in Afghanistan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Eliseo from San Juan, Puerto Rico says:
There are reasons why Afghanistan may or may not be worth the money and lives projected to be spent and lost there. They have to do with gas and oil supply lines from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. I want to know why we are not being told - is that in itself significant? Did some public relations guy in the Pentagon decide to keep it simple and mention only al Qaeda?
Judie from Texas says:
Same deal, different year. Once again, the American public is being told one thing when in fact something far different is taking place. No one will define a "few years"... perhaps worded differently, the same applied especially to Vietnam and Iraq.
M.L. from El Paso, Texas says:
Like ants, the Taliban will keep moving, charging and killing, and American lives will continue to be sacrificed. For what? I would like Pres. Obama to tell the American people very specifically what we are doing in Afghanistan. More importantly, do the people of Afghanistan want us there or do they want us out?
Jon from California says:
Everyone knows the 'war on terror' was going to be a long battle, but spending years in one Middle Eastern country then spending a 'few' more years in another is just plain ridiculous. Clearly tactics aren't working if it takes this long.
Ryan from Wisconsin says:
We got oursleves into this mess, and need to see it through. It would be irresponsible for the U.S. to just up and leave.
Megan from Fort Polk, Louisiana says:
My husband is in the Army and comes home from a 15 month tour in Iraq sometime next month. Perhaps we should ask my two kids if the wars in the Middle East should continue. There should be a point when the American people say enough is enough. As to when that point will come, who knows? A few years is a few too long if you ask me.