Primary tabs

Will Gen. David Petraeus’ command in Afghanistan expedite an end to the war there?

Yes. As he did in Iraq, Petraeus will do everything necessary to successfully begin withdrawing U.S. troops in 2011.
11% (208 votes)
Yes, but premature withdrawal of U.S. forces only means the Taliban will regain control.
24% (433 votes)
No because the government of Afghanistan is too many years away from stability and needs U.S. military support to take root.
28% (506 votes)
No because there is no way to define an end to this war.
37% (677 votes)
Total votes: 1824

 

 

View more polls

Comments

Ive been on this from the start and if the American Legion thinks Obama was justified I will not renew my membership and seperate from this or any other organization! He did deserve a reprimand but NOT to be relieved!

Submitted by Sooners61 : Jun 24, 2010 12:05pm

Until they get rid of embedded reporters and change the rules of engagement I doubt that we will ever be able to win this war. It is time we said to the whole world that we will not be tread upon any longer.

Submitted by Knobby : Jun 24, 2010 4:35pm

I want to know how this magazine got in to interview him to begin with.

Submitted by jordanch : Jun 24, 2010 6:02pm

This is sounding more and more like the Vietnam war if the Russian's could not win what makes our country think we can win?As far as the change of command something similar happened in Korea, but at least there was no question as to whether the change was done by a real President.

Submitted by vietnamsailor : Jun 24, 2010 7:23pm

"President" Obama says he agrred with the strategy of the outgoing General yet when the General said he needed 40,000 troops Obama only agreed to 30,000 then played games with those. Obviously if we keep the same strategy and tactics and manpower that General Patreous also was privy to and reportedly agreed with then we will make no more progress than the outgoing General did. In fact I fear that General Patraeus may be walking into a hornets nest of an ambush and would be a very tasty feast for the Taliban and all of our enemies in that regioun to rejoice in.
We had to fire bomb Japan to hell and then still had to nuke them to knock them to their senses and win that war and create a better country and class of people there.
If the "President" and "Commander in Chief" is not willing to provide the manpower and resources necessarry to overwhelm and subdue the enemy I think we will be left with two choices. Either retreat in shame or let the Air Force obtain JUSTICE and SECURITY.

Submitted by anthonyb76 : Jun 25, 2010 1:47am

It was clear from the start that Gen. McChrystal did not offer his resignation - it was demanded! A reprimand yes, to be relieved no. To talk to Rolling Stone a lapse in good judgement? Yes. Will the Afghans ever step up and fight? No. Like Viet Nam we are fighting a war with politics. The talking heads must get out of the way and let our military do their job! Good luck Gen. Petraeus and God Bless our troops!

Submitted by buff152 : Jun 25, 2010 4:20am

We heard Republicans say it again and again and again and again when Bush was President: criticizing a sitting President with troops in the field is TREASON. It's demoralizing to the troops. It's evil. It's what "slimy libruls" would do.

Now, typically, Republiturd hypocrisy rears its ugly head and one hears criticixm of Obama on an hourly basis, by not just civilians, not just enlisted, but OFFICER RANK MILITARY - and it's all OK.

What does this tell us?

1. Republicans are ALWAYS hypocritical - it's impossible for them to not be.
2. ANYTHING coming out of a Republican's mouth is a lie.
3. That Republicans must really have scraped the bottom of the barrel to have to stoop to "Rolling Stone Magazine" to make their diatribe public. I mean, really, how pathetic is that?

If McChrystal didn't have the balls to hold a press conference and state his views, but instead had to run to "Rolling Stone," he doesn't deserve to wear the uniform of a United States officer.

Submitted by amauck : Jun 25, 2010 12:11pm

Your glory boy Bush said criticism of the President in wartime is treason. If it was treason back then - it's treason now. You can't have it both ways, Phyllis.

Submitted by amauck : Jun 25, 2010 12:16pm

Your right Short Memory but your boy new what he was getting into and neither served a day on active duty!

Submitted by Sooners61 : Jul 1, 2010 2:58am

As in Vietnam, when you can"t tell the difference between the Militants and regular Civilians, what do you do? EEney, Meany, Miney, Moe?
What about a coordinated U.S./Pakistani pincer movement on the Border area.

Submitted by Deandist : Jul 1, 2010 3:45am

If we are going to send our troops to fight then let them. Ever since Pres Trumen we have been held back. It would be better to remove our troops then let them become targets as is happening now. If the politicians want to fight let them do it or else have there son's and dau's enlist.

Submitted by armychief2 : Jul 15, 2010 7:01pm