I am very confused why those who want out of Iraq now also are for a major escalation in Afghanistan.

The problem in Afghanistan is the Taliban. They are pretty bad actors but I do not recall that they had anything to do with 911. Seems to me that the problem there is pretty much the same as the current problem in Iraq. Feuding factions fighting for power.

With so many conflicting stories I am totally lost as to what or why we are doing there.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 911? What would make you say that? I remember that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden and the planners of 911. In fact, there is every reason to think that they knew that 911 was going to happen. Why do you think Bin Laden had their principle enemy (Massoud) killed just before the attack on the US? I think that was part of the deal.

Based on your logic, Bin Laden didn't attack the US. He just gave the attackers money and a plan.....

In my opinion, the collaboration of the Taliban made them guilty. They continue to harbor and help Al Qaeda in Pakistan. They are the enemy. Not the Mehdi army or the Badr group in Iraq.

I suggested no logic at all. What I have read recently about the Taliban was that they did not join Al Qaeda but after initial mistrust they grew to sympathies with them. I think the increase in violence in Afghanistan is because the Taliban wants to control Afghanistan not that it is part of an attack on the US.

I would think that by your logic we should go to war with quite a few countries in the Middle East and I think that would include Iraq. Al Qaeda is there now, to what extent is up to debate but I would think that there is support for Bin Laden there.

So are you proposing we invade Pakistan, Syria, Iran and probably others as well. I do not know the history of Bin Laden but I have to think that he received support from many countries be it directly or by ignoring that he was inside their borders.

About as many soldiers were killed in Iraq than were killed in the towers. They killed them willingly and continue to do so. But you hold no ill will for those people. If they wanted us out all they had to do was stop shooting for a few months and we would be gone. I know this is going to drive you over the edge but I think that this whole mess has resulted in a extremely inconsistent philosophy as to what is important.

I think that if harboring or supporting Bin Laden is justification to use our military against that country I think that we better impose the draft because we are going to be at war in quite a few places. At the very least we would declare war on Pakistan and Iran.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have taken up residence in Pakistan. The government in Pakistan is struggling to stabilize their own situation. I don't know that they are actively supporting and harboring the terrorists. Do you? If we were to invade Pakistan it would only help the terrorists get stronger.

In 2001 the Taliban helped Al Qaeda and refused to hand Bin Laden over to be tried for his actions. If we were to fail in Afghanistan then the Taliban would certainly return to power. How can you think that Al Qaeda would not be back at home there?

In 2003 there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. When we invaded a group that called itself Ansar Al Islam changed it's name to Al Qaeda in Iraq and declared allegience to Bin Laden. They have been defeated. Who is our enemy in Iraq at present?

We have lost over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq and we have started a war there that killed many thousands of Iraqis. There were about 3,000 people killed on 911.

"About as many soldiers were killed in Iraq than were killed in the towers. They killed them willingly and continue to do so. But you hold no ill will for those people. If they wanted us out all they had to do was stop shooting for a few months and we would be gone."

I don't know what you mean by that statement. Ill will for which people? By the way, there is no reason to think that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda. Remember that the Iranians are Shiia and Al Qaeda is Sunni......they aren't pals.

I do not know what Pakistan is doing, does anyone? My guess is that they are not going to go out of their way to find Bin Laden. I am not suggesting they know where it his nor that they support him but I think that there is substantial evidence that he is in Pakistan and I think it is obvious that his presence there is because he is welcome and secure there.

Someone is still killing US Soldiers. My guess it is not being done by people supportive of the US. Perhaps I am wrong.

I am saying that war is justified against those who killed those in the towers. Is it not also at this point justified against those who are killing US soldiers? To say if we were not there no soldiers would be killed applies to Afghanistan as well. If we were not in either place I think those who are opposing our presence in either place would get stronger. I think arguing about Iraq is getting more and more senseless.

Be it the surge or just time, Iraq is evolving into a place where our presence is going to be unnecessary. So McCain or Obama will be in charge of our exit from Iraq. Since Iraq calls the shots and both have said they would comply with there wishes, there really is no difference in the time line where we will no longer be in Iraq. Sort of a half full or half empty argument.

We will be out by the date set by Iraq so what basis is there to differentiate as to who would manage that withdrawal better.

Iran is providing arms that are used to kill US soldiers. Again are you saying that killing US soldiers in that case is justified so it is not an issue.

I do not know enough about some of these issues and mostly post these comments as an alternate view. I am not for more war and fully realize that if the US invaded every country that had people who killed US soldiers we would invade everywhere including NC.

What I believe is that there are issues at play in Iraq that may be the primary driving force for what our current approach is there. I know it is generally accepted that Oil is one of those issues but I believe there are others as well. I cannot say that they are good or bad reasons and because I also believe that we invaded Iraq for reasons other than those provided as the reason I think it is impossible to really know if it was a good idea or not.

I believe it was a bad idea and even if I am wrong, I think it is clear that what happened after the invasion was mismanaged.

Lastly, you are willing to accept the information provided as to what the Taliban is and who they support. Yet you are equally unwilling to accept what was said about Iraq.

"Iran is providing arms that are used to kill US soldiers. Again are you saying that killing US soldiers in that case is justified so it is not an issue. "

Again, you lost me. We suspect that some insurgent groups are getting weapons from Iran. We don't know if the weapons are coming from the Iranian government or if they are being smuggled through Iran from other places.

Remember that we have provided weapons to the enemy of our enemies in a number of conflicts. Afghanistan vs. Russia comes to mind. Are you proposing that countries supplying weapons to combatants should become the target in some of these battles? In that case you are in agreement with those who think bombing the US in retaliation for supplying guns to Israel is appropriate......

War is justified against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Nobody has argued that we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Obama has promised a renewed fight to defeat the Taliban. That is because they are complicit in the attack that killed 3,000 Americans.

We invaded Iraq to insure that there are no WMDs and to get rid of Saddam. Ok. Mission Accomplished. Why are we still there? Obama seems to have the agreement of Maliki on 16 months. McCain wants to stay for 100 years. McCain/Bush had the idea that permanent bases, like Germany or Japan would be a good idea. I don't think so. As long as we are the occupier in Iraq they will try to kill us.

The Afghan nation-building project is just as stupid as the Iraq nation- building project.

I think we could learn something from the Chinese on how to deal with the middle east, SW asia, and africa.

Great. You are suggesting that we use the Chinese communists as the model for how we treat our enemies and our friends.

Why not. Which dictatorship is it that we modeled Guantanamo after?

They're helping the Afghans develop mining operations, the Iranians with natural gas, the Iraqis with electric power generation, and so on in Africa and Latin America. They need to import raw materials and energy just as we do, but they have no chinese troops deployed in any of those places.

Sorry, gmat....I misunderevaluated what you said.

OK Middleview who had too much coffee now.

"We invaded Iraq to insure that there are no WMDs and to get rid of Saddam. OK. Mission Accomplished. Why are we still there? Obama seems to have the agreement of Maliki on 16 months. McCain wants to stay for 100 years. McCain/Bush had the idea that permanent bases, like Germany or Japan would be a good idea. I don't think so. As long as we are the occupier in Iraq they will try to kill us."

So you think it would have been fine to just leave when we found Saddam. I think that mission was accomplished but because W had no clue what he was doing we created one big mess. Once Saddam was gone, I think the concerns about what the outcome in Iraq would be were tied to issues not even considered initially. Not saying the W faced those issues effectively either. But I think an unstable Iraq has consequences such as what will Iran do and how an unstable Iraq would affect the world oil market that I do not believe we could ignore.

Now I think you are better than tossing out that 100 year thing as an argument. You know what he said and our extended stay there would have been at the request of the Iraq government. He has agreed that if they say it is time for us to leave he would leave. If we are asked to stay why are we an occupier? Sounds like you real al Jazerra too much.

On MSN they were talking about how Mosul is controlled by Al-Qaida still. If they are still in control when the 16 months is over is that just bad luck or should something be done about it? They also talked about how militant groups in Iraq receive training from Iran.

I know we supply arms, training, and money to groups that oppose governments that we do not agree with. Where Bin Laden got his training. But, I think that saying that what is going on in Iraq is OK but what is going on in Afghanistan is not is pretty close to splitting hairs I think.

What they are doing in Afghanistan has nothing to do with us at all. They want control of Afghanistan. Do you believe that they will be OK with our staying in Afghanistan?

When the war started I always said what if you remove one government and they pick one that is even more hostile to the US. I thought it could happen and even though the current government is not hostile I think that in time that could change. We screwed up a lot of Iraqi lives with all the devastation our military brought on that country. I know that no matter how I felt about a government, if they dropped a bomb on my kids house I would not be very open minded about it.

I know you and Obama are selling that Obama won the war in Iraq and under his direction everything will be fine but I will never buy that the current conditions in Iraq are because of Obama.

I think this spin that Obama evaluated the situation and knew that 16 months was the right amount of time is sickening. What will he say when Petraus says that the surge improved the situation in Iraq? Will he say it had no impact at all and the improvement was because they knew Obama was likely to be president.

I know it is a difficult thing to do but if Obama truly is a uniter and willing to work with both sides why is he so unwilling to accept that the surge provided some value to the situation. I think his "Here I come to save the Day" routine will outrage those who do not support him and will push away those who are undecided.

Neither I nor Obama claimed that he has won the war in Iraq. I would support the view that Bush is losing the war in Afghanistan.

1. The situation has improved in Iraq. It is important to realize that there are several policies that contributed....not just the surge.

A) The awakening councils program started in 2005. We started hiring Sunnis into the militias in Anbar and other places. They seem to have defeated Al Qaeda with some help from the surge.

B) Petraeus started a program of barricading neighborhoods where the insurgents seemed to be striking at the civilians and mosques. This was in the 2006 timeframe.

C) Al-Sadr declared a truce at about the same time as the surge was declared. The decline in violence began when this happened and was prior to the arrival of any substantial part of the surge troops.

We put about 20,000 troops into Iraq, primarily Baghdad. I think the biggest change in the situation there has been the decline in attacks on the Green Zone and on Iraqi government officials.

You've heard that Mosul is under the control of Al Qaeda? You should quit watching that channel. The north is firmly in the control of the Kurds. Al Qaeda doesn't and hasn't operated there except for the half dozen or so car bombings in the last 5 years.

Look, you keep getting wrapped up in the Iraq vs. Afghanistan argument.....the Taliban ran a government that harbored and enabled Al Qaeda. They are complicit in the attack on 911. Their absolute defeat and destruction is part of the justice due after the 3,000 American civilians were murdered.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911. There are few Al Qaeda fighters left there. The fighting is between Iraqi groups for control of the oil...There are private militias, primarily among the Shiites, that are doing all of the shooting.

Sounds like an Iraqi problem to me.

I agree that the surge alone did not cause where we are in Iraq alone. I think W let go of the controls and let someone who had a clue make some decisions as you mentioned in your post.

I will look for that post but it was a clip from msnbc who for the most part is part of Obama's cheerleader team.

As far as Afghanistan goes I am not sure how more troops there is protecting our interest either. I really believe it is a political thing. Afghan was always viewed as the right thing to do and Iraq was the wrong thing, especially lately. I think it was the right thing then and now I do not think the same dynamics are in play just as I think you have to agree that the same dynamics are not in play in Iraq.

There is nothing like building up an enemy and then taking action to smash them to get everyone all stirred up. The build up to Iraq had most of the people in this country anxious to see the Iraqi army crushed under our heal. Now it seems as if everyone was against it. I was posting here way back then and believe me when I say to oppose the war was not very popular here.

We are going to build up there, there goes the war surplus by the way, and the Soviet Union couldn't do it, do not think we will either so it will be mostly a waste. We are not going to conduct a war that could defeat them. When you have to make sure there are as little collateral damage as possible there is no way to beat them. Obama is going to stay out of the hot zone which is Pakistan.

Not a reliable source but I heard on the radio a guy talking about meeting soldiers in Afghan and they said they had credible evidence that Saddam was not far away in Pakistan. Probably true who knows.

McCain chose Iraq as his turn a loss into a win strategy and Obama is choosing Afghanistan in the same way. To me it is just political BS to get the right response from their sheep or wanna be sheep.

You know quite a bit and I cannot argue this issue because my knowledge is not as comprehensive as yours. However, I would like to see you present your cynical view of what is going to be done, was done or what should be done in Afghanistan. Not asking that you believe it but that you can see both sides of the issue.

I know you probably would be willing to get Karl Rove and give him a brush party or what ever they call it when they hard brush someone to punish them, but I really believe that the key to the successes he has achieved is that he seems to understand both sides of an issue. He works to achieve success on the side he is on but is more successful because he understands those he is competing against.

A little Middleview view of both sides of the issue would be greatly appreciated.

I was against the war in Iraq for a couple of reasons. I didn't see that Saddam was a threat to us and that his crimes were enough that when committed they would have been justification for intervention (ie...the gassing of the Kurds in 1986), but almost 20 years later would be hard to sell as the reason for a US invasion and occupation.

I am somewhat a student of history and have seen the error of a military policy that split forces into two campaigns. Hitler could have won World War II if he had not declared war on the US....dividing his forces. His ability to conduct military campaigns was also hampered by his occupation of countries that added little to his military resources. Our ability to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda was impaired by the invasion of Iraq. No matter how you felt about Saddam and Iraq, success would have been less a burden on our capabilities if we had waited another year. I think they looked at the time frame to the election and calculated when a war would have the best impact on the 2004 presidential election. They didn't want to wait until early 2004 in case it wasn't quite as successful and we were still fighting the republican guard outside of Baghdad 9 months after the invasion.

Bush should have left Jay Garner in charge, let him organize an election sooner, rather than when we actually did and should never have disbanded the Iraqi army.

We created the insurgency.

The reason to work harder in Afghanistan is because of the problem of the Taliban gaining strength and destabilizing both the Afghan and Pakistani governments. The greatest danger we face is that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal would be controlled by a government more sympathetic to Bin Laden.

One very good reason to get out of Iraq is to repair the military. We have a $40 billion backlog in repairs to armored vehicles. Those are tanks, strykers and bradleys that are sitting in repair yards in Kuwait, Germany and the US. They were damaged in combat and we have no money set aside to repair them. We are continuing to strip units in the US and elsewhere in order to field units in Iraq, but we are making our total ground force capability much weaker. We have "stop loss'd" about 58,000 soldiers to force them to stay in for another year when their enlistments were up. That would mean to me that morale sucks.

Putting 10k or so additional soldiers into Afghanistan wouldn't be nearly the strain on US military forces than is the current stay in Iraq.

Lastly.....who is the enemy in Iraq? The combatants are Shiite tribes who are fighting to control the oil. We are not going to make these people love each other and there is no doubt that if we left they would continue to fight each other until they work it out. The thought that we are fighting them there so they won't invade Northern New Jersey is laughable. There are no sizable Al Qaeda forces left in Iraq......we paid the Sunnis to kill them.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. The rush to war was a joke, that Saddam was threat was a joke. Hell we staged our forces right on his border. The approach used during the war was mostly one mistake after another.

I agree that two fronts historically is a disaster. Not sure this proved that concept as being wrong. I do not think I even hinted that we should stay in Iraq to protect against an attack here. I think that the only reason to continue on in Iraq is to make sure they have a government that could maintain a sense of stability so Iran stays out and the region is not viewed as a day away from disaster. I agree there are lots of long held feuds and the fight for the oil money is sure to cause some other problems.

You may be right about Afghanistan but I think you are saying that the reason to be in Afghanistan is because of Pakistan. From what I read we are in control of only a very small part of Afghanistan. I think I read 10 percent with the rest being the wild wild west.

TO BE COMPLETED LATER THIS GOOFY SITE JUST LOBBED OFF A BIG PART OF WHAT i WROTE. TIME FOR BED.