Ultimately I imagine he will send more troops. Often a true leader has to make decisions which are not popular. We will all see.

For me it comes down to this in Afghanistan. Is 40,000 troops FOR SURE gonna win the war? If yes, send them in. If no, pull out. Are we gonna need to put 40,000 additional troops in 1 year from now and then another 40,000 a year after that? Do we really want to go that route?

I remember the before the Iraq invasion one of our Generals suggesting we needed 350,000-400,000 troops. In retrospect he was right. We probably would have had a quicker outcome with less loss of American lives. Seems to me we have the same thing in Afghanistan. If we're not all in we shouldn't prolong the thing.

It's a different war, hamm. The enemy doesn't march down the road in uniform. They dress in civilan clothes and hide in caves, homes, and mosques. Dropping bombs like in WWII won't do anything but waste bombs and kill civilians. You need good intel. and boots on the grounds to go in and get these guys. We need to go all in or fold up our tents and go home.

As the Reuters article said....when Obama is faced with a tough choice, he looks for middle ground. That's not going to work here. Time for the commander-in-chief to make a decision and lead. One way or the other.

I don't care about their civilians.

I don't care how many of them die.

As far as I'm concerned their country and Pakistan are full of voluntary hostages.

Those who provide comfort to my enemy is also my enemy.

By the way...is there another word besides "civilians" to use for people who are "uncivilized"??

Innocent human beings, (IHB for short)? Sometimes the "comfort" is not voluntary. Your view was shared by the Russians, who didn't do very well in Afghanistan.

Do you think there is ever a guarantee of winning a war? One thing for certain, if you want to make an informed decision about War you ask professional soldiers, not professional politicians.

No wonder we have not heard from BP recently, he has been in Italy. I hope he had a nice time.

<http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B6AQ5O0&show_article=1/

<http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/rollins.saturday.night.live.obama/index.html/

Now THAT was funny.

BP must mean Bishop Pro-bama.

( I had a better one in mind, but decided not to use it)

My point was to ask how many troops do we ultimately need to do what it is we want to accomplish. Where's the enemy? What kind of war are we fighting?

I do not know. Fortunately we have a President who was absolutely clear on what needed to be done during the campaign.

We were discussing this the other day at work. Our factory managers all have about 10 - 20 years of experience, and our Senior Managers all about 25 - 30 years.

<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28015.html/

I thought BP = Blind Partisan.

"White House Is Seeking to Assure President Will Have Public Support No Matter What Decision He Makes"

Leadership?

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/politics/onthemarc/main5367581.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain;cbsnewsLeadStoriesPrimary/