...during the presidential campaign Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.

In April 2008, shortly before Obama wrote his op-ed, there were 32,000.

When Obama wrote his op-ed piece there was not anyone in the country that believed that he was proposing that he would more than triple the force size in Afghanistan to over 100,000 troops.  A couple brigades was what he said.

Two brigades is 5,000 to 8,000 troops

...

Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"

Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"

Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"

Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"

Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"

We have an official unemployment rate that exceeds 10% and an actual rate that is close to 20%. Our infrastructure is falling down around our ears. People are hungry. People are losing their homes. Our schools are failing to educate our children. We are a nation in crisis. We need to focus all of our resources on fixing our country.

How much money has already been wasted in Iraq? And really, what do we have to show for it? A totally corrupt government that will crash and burn in civil war the minute the U.S.A. leaves. And Iraq had an actual functioning social structure when we went in. Afghanistan has nothing that comes close to a functioning national social structure.

success won't solve one problem in america.

failure will only compound.

don't be at all stunned if, next year, based on the general's "analysis", obama needs to up the ante in afghanistan by another oh, 50k troops. the following year, it will be another 50 or 100k, just to get the job done right. should the economy start to turn around, and employment increase, that could present some very real problems: where will the troops come from?

but aside from that, afghanistan and iraq are rat holes, siphoning the national blood and treasure, while providing nothing of substance in return.

The July, 2011 date for beginning a withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan, announced by President Obama in his speech to West Point military cadets Tuesday night, is neither irreversible nor even a deadline, top US national security officials said Wednesday.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before Senate and House committees throughout the day, defending Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan.

Gates revealed that some of these new troops would arrive in Afghanistan before Christmas, and that most would be in place in time to join in the spring fighting after the winter snows melt in Afghanistan's rugged mountain regions.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday morning, every Republican senator and most Democrats voiced support for the escalation of the war, but several of the Republicans pressed the trio of witnesses on Obama's one-sentence reference to July, 2011 as the beginning of a drawdown of US forces.

In response, Gates, Clinton and Mullen each made statements effectively declaring the July, 2011 deadline meaningless, and emphasizing that the Obama administration was committed to a long-term military presence in Central Asia.

But it's pretty much impossible to know when you're "finished".

Also, a surge combined with training locals and a different strategy did actually work in Iraq. We don't like to admit it, since it was Bush, and the war was based on lies. But it did work.

It is of course true that a civilian effort is very important. Some sort of civilian and economic base must be laid. Obama did mention an increased civilian effort. I don't know the details. I hope it's good.

Living is about doing things that need to be done now with the best view of the future. You never found a Soviet style dictator that you thought we should oppose and you never found a ruler that supported us that you supported.

In Brussels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pledged that U.S. allies would "send at least 5,000 more soldiers to this operation, and probably a few thousand on top of that."...
But European military officials acknowledged that the figure of 5,000 extra troops included many forces that are either already in Afghanistan or were previously scheduled to begin arriving in 2010.

The TL style standards prevent me from giving full force to my reaction to the mountain of lies but my first reaction starts with an 'f' and ends 'gently'. The last thing we need is more spin. The lies are what got us into this mess and now we're facing the un-palatable prospect of asking those opposed to the war to ignore the escalation because the troops really are coming out and at the same time asking those committed to a long-term winning strategy (yes, beating the Taliban and displacing them in large parts of Afghanistan) to ignore the promise to bring the troops home.

Somebody is getting took. It's long past time to end the bs. In or out. No rational person believes the US and Nato can turn Afghanistan around in 24 months.