Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

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% (676 votes)
Total votes: 1823

 

View more polls

 

Sooners61

June 24, 2010 - 12:05pm

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!

Knobby

June 24, 2010 - 4:35pm

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.

jordanch

June 24, 2010 - 6:02pm

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

vietnamsailor

June 24, 2010 - 7:23pm

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.

anthonyb76

June 25, 2010 - 1:47am

"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.

buff152

June 25, 2010 - 4:20am

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!

amauck

June 25, 2010 - 12:11pm

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.

amauck

June 25, 2010 - 12:16pm

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.

Sooners61

July 1, 2010 - 2:58am

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

Deandist

July 1, 2010 - 3:45am

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.

armychief2

July 15, 2010 - 7:01pm

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.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think