Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the username or e-mail address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

Question of the Day | 10/13/2009 5:00 am

To ensure that there are no safe havens for terrorists, would you support keeping troops in Afghanistan for the next five years?

Liz Smith, Joan Ganz Cooney and Candice Bergen discuss the cost of safety.
© Shutterstock
Liz Smith

Liz Smith | 10/13/2009 1:00 am

Liz Smith Fears Another Vietnam

I don’t know. I want the president to decide this fateful question. I fear we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. But this is why I voted for Barack Obama and I don’t believe in second-guessing him for the rest of his term and adding to the confusion and hatefulness that is going on. I do fear another Vietnam.

comments19 Comments
Candice Bergen

Candice Bergen | 10/13/2009 1:00 am

Candice Bergen: Where Are the Terrorists?

Afghanistan? I thought we were shifting our focus to Pakistan. That’s where Al-Qaeda is said to be hanging these days. The Taliban is supposedly no threat to the West. Unless they team up. Which they are wont to do.

comments18 Comments
Joan Ganz Cooney

Joan Ganz Cooney | 10/13/2009 1:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney on the Argument of War

I have heard so many smart and knowledgeable people argue both sides of this question that I have no idea what the right answer is. The big question for me always is how many American soldiers’ lives is it worth, not to mention civilians in Afghanistan? That question almost always turns me against the war option.

comments6 Comments
Read more about: Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, Politics, Terrorism, War

163 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

FP2
C Jay:  we actually beat the living daylights out of the Viet Cong and made them nearly tottally ineffective during Tet and probably could have won the war except for public opinion and the congress listening to the media,  and for other one very compelling reason:  Gen Giap of North Vietnam:  he stated that even with the win at Tet they, the North, were prepared to fight for 100 more years if necesssary. And we weren’t nor could we have. 
By FP2 on 10/13/2009 2:39 pm
CHardy
so Frank instead of putting more Troops you think coming home is best?  You stated above we didnt keep what we had already taken so leaving now is best?  No I dont want to see all those Troops go over there but I also dont want to see it all go to waste either….So again, Obama is dammed either way.
By CHardy on 10/13/2009 2:53 pm
FP2
If you have a no win situation you leave.
By FP2 on 10/13/2009 3:08 pm
MaizieJames

I was thinking exactly that.

Thanks, Frank for saying in one sentence what would have taken my a paragraph to explain.

By MaizieJames on 10/13/2009 9:31 pm
MaizieJames
Opps!  Sorry about the typo errors: ‘me’ not‘my’.
By MaizieJames on 10/13/2009 9:34 pm
MaggieW

For five years?  No.  Afghanistan is continually being reassessed and for good reason. We don’t even know what will happen there next week. 

 In late summer, Pakistan said it had routed the Taliban from the  Swat Valley.  A CIA missile killed the Taliban chief.  Things were looking good.

Fast forward.Last week four major attacks within eight days occurred in the Swat Valley, the last killing 41 people.

The USA doesn’t just have problems with the Taliban and Al Queda.  Pakistan military and civilians are not happy with conditions placed by our government on massive US aid packages which insists Pakistan do more to control its armed forces and fight Islamist extremists.  That is a huge problem for our military.   Pakistan wants to fight this war its way and wants it to look like it is not an American war.  Pakistan wants full ownership.  This has been going on for years.  GWB gave Pakistan 3 billion to  flush out Al Queda in those caves along its borders.  But no; Pakistan took that money and bought fighter jets in case India got frisky. 

According to Major General Athar Abbas, 80% of the attacks have been planned there or near Pakistan.   So, why send  40,000 more troops to dusty little villages in rural Afghanistan .  To do what?  Monitor the poppy fields?

I have read the President has the ear of about 60 military strategists including those who are experts in the Middle East.  They know far better than anyone on this forum just what the situation is in the Middle East. 

 

By MaggieW on 10/13/2009 10:20 am
FP2
And don’t forget Maggie that a major attack by the Taliban was made on the Pakistan army HQ just last week. Yeah they sure have the Taliban under control.
By FP2 on 10/13/2009 10:38 am
MaggieW

Frank, we could be there 15 years or 25 years.  There’s not a thing to be gained unless we can set up a stable government that is not corrupt.   Fat chance.  Nothing has worked there so far.  There is no incentive. The UN acts like it’s interested when it’s not.  The Bush administration spent massive amounts of money attempting to teach the Afghans how to irrigate and plant vegetables/orchards for consumption and market.  Irrigating sand was a costly failure, and why grow eggplant and tangerines when opium will always be in demand? 

If Al Queda was in Pakistan/ Afghanistan only, I could understand troop increase.  But there are cells all over the world, doing well and flourishing in Africa and parts of South America, just for starters.  To boot, we have our own  terrorists right here that need monitoring.  The latest was from Jordan and had been over staying his visa.  The FBI believes there are approximately 200,000 people who have overstayed their welcome for years. 

By MaggieW on 10/13/2009 11:32 am
FP2
I agree totally Maggie.
By FP2 on 10/13/2009 12:35 pm
Cjay
F P, research the id of that attack group. Again, semantics are not helping us with this topic.
By Cjay on 10/13/2009 10:27 pm
Cjay
Maggie - you said it! (monitor the poppy fields!)
By Cjay on 10/13/2009 2:33 pm
ChromeToe

I’m with Joan. I don’t feel like I really know enough. Every thing about the middle east is incredibly complicated. I also can’t quite ever get my  mind around it being "worth it" to kill our children. what outcome are we hoping for?

By ChromeToe on 10/13/2009 10:43 am
BarbaraB3
I’m with Scarlett on this one we need to keep our army strong here in America so we can start protecting ourselves and keep our borders safe.  Enough already of policing the world.  Who can we count on to rush to our aide  if something horrible happens.  No one but us.  The terrorist problem is like a cancer and when there is a remission it’s great then the cancer starts to slowly spread somewhere else.  As long as there are evil, ignortant fanatics who believe in Virgins in heaven and treat woman they way they do we will never stop them.  Bring our boys all home and start using our smarts & intelligence to protect are own.
By BarbaraB3 on 10/13/2009 11:01 am
Cjay
DITTO! The U.S. now is un-defended - at least bring home our National Guard for heaven’s sakes!
By Cjay on 10/13/2009 2:34 pm
FP2
C Jay with our nuclear arsenal we are very well defended.  We have the capability of incinerating any place or country.  I’d say we’re well defended.
By FP2 on 10/13/2009 3:28 pm
« first‹ previous…2345678910next ›last »