Respectfully, I fixed your statement for you.

In Afghanistan we have an enemy that wants us out, but for a combination of political and military reasons hates us and wants to destroy us wherever they can.

One side wants to be left alone, the other side launched a direct assault on our nation.

We can go into Al Qaeda v. Taliban all we want. The fact is the Taliban helped our and promoted and recruted for our enemeies.

We need to destroy the Taliban and/or eradicate its militant philosophy. I don’t have the solution in terms of tactics, but pulling out and taking a wait and see approach doesn’t seem like it will be success. If we’re lucky it will buy us 15 years of a false sense of security where the problem can be started all over again.

The militant Japanese and German aggressors were rooted out, destroyed, and their philosophy discarded by the wayside. That should be our long term strategy. Then it is just a question of deciding on the tactics to achieve it.

I agree with this post for the most part. True there not exact parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan, but there are enough to trouble concerned Americans all over our land, but particularly Latter-day Saints who as the current custodians of the earthly Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, I think have a special obligation to be anti-war and pro Kingdom of God.

It is after all, the preaching of the word of God which has a more powerful effect upon the minds of people, than even the sword. See Alma 31:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/31/5#5

But, if current media reports are accurate it does not appear President Obama will heed the lessons of LBJ and his war council of decades ago. The speech Obama should give on Afghanistan (but will not) is that after careful deliberation he has concluded for the good of American security at home and abroad, he is deescalating the war, not the opposite.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175151/

With October being the most deadly month for our troops ever (preceded by September, then August) we are most thankful this thanksgiving for snow in Afghanistan, which at least slows the Taliban down.

If we are going to leave our boys over there, we need to send more troops. If we are going to pull them all out, we will need even better mental health counseling to help them come to a healthy realization of how their service was meaningful, despite the pullout. My concern with our present president (and one shared by many troops) is that his caution, his hesitation, is causing death for men who have given us the sacrifice of their lives to use as we will.

I remember reading somewhere that American veterans of the Vietnam war (er, conflict) actually went to Russia to counsel Russian veterans of their Afghanistan war (er, conflict) about the frustration of “losing” to a smaller and lesser-equipped rag-tag army.

Some of my Vietnam vet friends say to me: “Hey, we were winning when I left.” Which, technically, is/was true.

Thanks for the tenor of the comments — strong opinions, considered views, and civility too. You-all are the best!

I think that in these days, it’s hard to have a tested president. Most of our recent presidents, and those into the future, will be “untested” (and does military service at a lower level really “test” someone? I don’t know.).

I didn’t really pay attention to campaign promises on the wars from either side — every president breaks promises when faced with the reality of governing.

I do believe that he has to make the decision himself — he can’t let Congress make the decision for him (this may be his opportunity to force his allies to back him no matter what, which I think he hasn’t done and needs to).

I would prefer that he find a way to fund it with current tax revenues. I would prefer that Gates come up with the plan and not the field generals; he seems to at least have an eye on the future. (I never served in the military, but lots and lots of businesses and organizations don’t let the field leaders make critical strategic decisions — they make tactical decisions and provide input to a higher authority who gives them marching orders. And I don’t think they have a plan either. Feel free to dismiss this in its entirety for my lack of military service, as if that’s key among all other experiences… )

It’s all pure fantasy, but what if after 9/11 we’d just shrugged, rebuilt, and ignored al-Qaeda. Maybe we fix our own security issues and root out operatives at home and tighten the borders but simply ignore the terrorists physically abroad (sure, we take their money, etc.). Just a fantasy, I know. But I think we might have saved billions of dollars and had no more attacks. I’m no pacifist, but it’s not necessary to always retaliate after the bully. Teddy Roosevelt, I’d like to think, would have used his big stick to protect our interests and ignore those that would have served to weaken America, like unwinnable wars.