All the crocodile tears of the Left about the supposedly forsaken opportunity for victory in Afghanistan are now revealed for what they were – a mere ruse giving us an excuse to choose to lose in Iraq, to be followed by choosing to lose in Afghanistan. Our enemies could not hope for better friends.

“And thank goodness President Truman didn’t define victory down in Germany and Japan. Consequently, American troops have been stationed there, in both countries, for more than half-a-century. American forces, likewise, have been stationed in Kosovo ever since President Clinton sent them there in 1999. The U.S. military is a force for good in the world, and our forward-presence abroad is typically a helpful and stabilizing influence. Why, then, preclude the option of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan for another eight years or more? Why communicate a desire to quickly leave that country? All this does is signal weakness and irresolution in the wake of a determined and implacable foe who might now be inclined to try and wait us out.”

He’s comparing our stay in Afghanistan to being stationed in Japan or Germany post-WWII? Or Kosovo post-conflict? There’s a difference between continually fighting battles and engaging hostile forces — which is what we’re doing in Afghanistan — and having a contingent of forces present after the fighting is over to keep the peace. Maybe you’ve forgotten what “post-” means.

You should have introduced him to the word before he hastily and foolishly rushed the country into Iraq. Nevertheless, you are to be applauded for publicly confessing your stupidity.

I’m glad that the former Vice President (Dick Cheney) has come around to my way of thinking. He’s a little late. I wish he would have weighed in earlier in the debate; however, I still welcome his engagement and contribution.

Regards,
John

And now we blame Obama for dithering, using the term from Cheney, the guy who engineered the war in the 1st place. Well how about using another Cheney Term: Quagmire. Look it up as defined by Cheney in 1994 or are you too juvenile to remeber?

By all means, the loyal opposition is required to make a comeback. But to ‘hang its failure around Obama’s neck?” Very harsh indeed. I think you make too much of who’s going to be remembered for failure. Americans are fully understanding of the complexities of these two wars, and I don’t know anyone who is going to forget that it was 8 years of Republican rule that brought us to these wars. The ‘war’ will be won or it will be another futile gesture draining our resources. Either way, the American people will understand that Obama had a Pandora’s box on his hands wide open and the furies already flying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1

I agree with Spartacus. Why not raise taxes to pay for the war as well as healthcare reform? Is this country incapable of meeting its obligations in foreign affairs as well as domestic? Where’s the sacrifice that should be part and parcel of a great society, one that can assure our soldiers have the best resources available to them to win the war, and the sacrifice of understanding that taking care of we shouldn’t be deciding who will get adequate healthcare or who doesn’t. Because unless you live in a glass bubble of wealth, at some point of another, someone in everyone’s family will be touched by the rising costs.

And no ‘great nation’ should allow 45,000 Americans to die each year from lack of healthcare coverage.

I didn’t dodge your question. I rejected its premise, which is that we can only do one or the other, and offered the alternative of doing both by raising taxes. If we’re going to rank the options, as we should do, then clearly raising taxes is preferable to going into debt to end the war or to save 45,000 lives each year.