(PHOTO CREDIT: DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
This is just wrong. The White House says it will take President Obama several weeks to decide on the future course of action in Afghanistan... but U.S. troops on the ground need help now.
Consider this - 43 troops have died in Afghanistan in the month since General Stanley McChrystal asked for more troops - saying without them the operation will fail.
In fact - September was the deadliest month for American troops since the war began 8 years ago. That's eight years ago, in case you've lost track. And compared to 2 years ago - the number of U.S. troops killed by roadside bombs is up 400 percent.
President Obama's decision is being complicated by the fact that his own people can't agree on what to do next... Top military commanders back the call for more troops. McChrystal is believed to want to add up to 40,000 troops to the current U.S. force of 68,000.
But other key officials, like the national security adviser and the vice president appear to be less supportive. Of course they're not fighting the war. The generals are.
There is an old expression about either doing something or getting off the pot that applies here. Either get our troops the reinforcements the commanders say they need to win or get them the hell out of there.
Maybe President Obama should have stayed home and focused on the war instead of trekking off to Europe on a taxpayer-funded mini-holiday to lobby for Chicago to get the Olympics.
Here’s my question to you: Is it fair to the troops on the ground in Afghanistan for Pres. Obama to delay his decision for weeks?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
When will the politicians ever learn? When a commander-in-chief commits American troops to armed conflict, he has an absolute obligation to support those troops with everything necessary to win the conflict as quickly as possible and with a minimum loss of life. Dawdling for weeks discussing a 'new' strategy while American troops are dying is obscene.
Jules from New York writes:
We rushed into Vietnam and Iraq based on the advice of the generals. Pres. Obama needs to take as much time as he needs before deciding to risk more lives and tax dollars. Bush responded quickly but not thoughtfully and look at the results in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Alex (major in US Army) writes:
The record casualties are due to us taking the fight to the Taliban before winter so fairness is not the issue. We can reduce the tempo of our operations until additional troops arrive. And they won't arrive tomorrow even with an instant decision. I prefer a president who deliberates over a decision instead of going with his gut. Ultimately, I hope the president listens to the generals and the additional troops are there by spring to take the fight to the enemy since it will be months before they arrive.
Sandra (mom of a Marine who will deploy next year) writes:
Jack, It's not only unfair, but wrong.
Jack, You should know that Obama is delaying his decision because he doesn't want it to blow up the health care reform debate on Capitol Hill. The GOP can't wait to change the message from health care since they have nothing to offer, other than more of the same. DUH!
Babs from Pa. writes:
Our president has a history of voting "present" in situations where he did not want to take a stand. As commander-in-chief, “present” is no longer an option, period. Core principles and a steady moral compass are needed to be a leader, soaring rhetoric and governing by polls are just not cutting it.
Scott from Aberdeen, Maryland writes:
Delay, yes, but maybe not for weeks. The troops are the ones getting killed. It’s time to do your homework and make up your mind.