CNN contributor Bob Greene says it seems as if many have half-forgotten that nation is still at war

Bob Greene
CNN Contributor

Another wartime Christmas week has arrived.

Yet on the streets of the United States, it often feels as if this is a nation that has half-forgotten that its sons and daughters are in combat.

Not literally, of course; Americans are intellectually aware that the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq continue. And for the families of the young soldiers, sailors, Marines and aviators in combat zones, the wars never go away, even for a single tick of the clock.

But the lack of shared sacrifice during these war years - the sense that those of us at home go on with our lives pretty much as usual while the men and women who have volunteered to be in uniform risk their own lives anew with each rising of the sun - is a notion that is especially acute during the holiday season.

Keep Reading...

U.S. troops search for militants in the mountainous Taliban stronghold in Paktika Province in Afghanistan.

Jared Polis
Special to CNN

I recently attended the White House Christmas tree lighting and congressional holiday party. Christmas is traditionally a time of peace and love, quite a juxtaposition for a nation fighting three wars, one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, and a global war on terror.

We went into Afghanistan eight years ago to oust the Taliban and capture their guest Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda associates. Eight years later, al Qaeda has largely been driven out of Afghanistan.

When should our nation go to war? Only as a last resort.

That's why I opposed the completely unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and why I now oppose an ongoing occupation of Afghanistan.

In meeting after meeting, I have been shown by generals and statesmen what we are doing in Afghanistan, how it could take decades, might not work, and is fraught with risks. In response, I ask the same repeated question: Why?

Keep Reading...

Paul Armstrong
CNN

Russia's top drugs adviser has called on the United States to use its troop surge into Afghanistan to help stem the flow of drugs entering its borders, as heroin addiction reaches epidemic levels.

Last week President Barack Obama announced plans to send an extra 30,000 U.S. troops to the region in an effort to stabilize the Afghan government by defeating the Taliban, who are believed to be heavily involved in the country's burgeoning drugs trade.

However the strategy of destroying the poppy fields of southern Afghanistan, which yield the heroin flooding out of the country, is now viewed as counterproductive by the U.S.-led coalition because it drives farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

Keep Reading...

Charity Tooze
AC360° Contributor

While the U.S. and Afghanistan government continue to work to defeat the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, the eight-year-old promise to help relieve the oppression of women and girls has largely not been kept.

During his prime time address last week at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., President Obama laid out several military goals and a commitment to law and order. But he did not mention women and girls. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch released the report “We have the Promises of the World,” chronicling the oppressive conditions women and girls continue to face in Afghanistan.

The Karzai government will now work with Taliban fighters who are willing to give up violence and support the efforts of the Afghan government. “Women are living in Taliban controlled areas, so peace deals and payments to insurgents isn’t really going to help women. Because it won’t change the fundamental mentality of the Taliban,” said Rachel Reid, Human Rights Watch researcher and the author of this week’s report.

Similarly, both the U.S. and Afghan administrations have committed to support local tribal leaders in establishing militias in rural areas to police the Taliban. “In the past local militias given guns and money have disappeared or committed human rights abuses themselves or they start polarizing with another group,” Reid said.

But Reid, who has lived and worked in Afghanistan for more than two years, said there is little difference in the mindset of the Taliban, tribal leaders or the parliament when it comes to the rights of women and girls.

“In the Jirgas or traditional councils where Afghans go if there is a crime or they have a complaint, a girl can be given as compensation for the crime, it’s called baad. Girls are traded like property,” Reid said.

Sivanka Dhanapala, a senior regional coordinator for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), said, “some women find the situation intolerable because of forced marriage at a young age. Some set themselves on fire as an attempt to escape.” Because of that, he added, there is a special burn unit in a hospital in the province of Hera.

While on paper President Hamid Karzai’s government promises the equality of women and men in Article 22 of the Constitution, many argue the situation on the ground does not reflect that commitment. According to the United Nations Development Fund for Women’s (UNIFEM) gender development index, Afghan women are second to last in the entire world.

Many young women are forced into marriages some before the legal age of 16. The controversial Shia Personal Status Law that received international attention in April of 2009 was often referred to in the international media as the rape law. It mandated women have sex with their husbands every fourth night.

The law was amended and signed by president Karzai in July of this year. It now states that women cannot leave their homes without the permission of their husbands or fathers, that custody of children will be given to fathers and grandfathers, and their husbands can refuse food to women if they refuse to oblige their husbands sexually.

“The Shia Personal Status Law sets a terrible precedent. The law reflects the realities of many women’s lives but it doesn’t mean you take customary law and enshrine as state law. It just makes it harder for women.” Reid said.

Currently, there is one female minister in the government – the minister of women’s affairs. Over the past few years, women in public life have come under severe threat. Lt. Col. Malalai Kakar was the highest-ranking female police officer. She was shot on her way to work in 2008. Similarly, Sitara Achakzai a member of a provincial council and respected local leader was shot in 2009.

In both incidents the Taliban claimed responsibility but there has not been an arrest in either case. The murders and threats often have a ripple affect for women in Afghanistan, which contributes to a culture of fear and intimidation. This extends into the Afghan refugee population in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. “Afghan women living in Iran would rather stay in Iran than return to Afghanistan because they have access to education and can work in Iran,” Dhanapal said.

“Not all the news is bad. One of the more heartening aspects is the opening of many girls schools,” said Dhanapala. He went on to say, “when you drive through the countryside and see girls going to school in their bright uniforms it gives you hope to persevere.” Senzil Nawid, author and scholar on Afghan women, said the women of Afghanistan are incredibly resilient. “If security is improved the women will bounce right back,” Nawid said.

Nawid points out that the cultural oppression of women began when the Afghan communist parties overthrew the first Afghan president in 1978. At that point a bloody civil war ensued. “Women were the victims, they were treated horribly under the radical Marxists regimes and the Mujahadeen forces,” Nawid Said.

“The Obama administration has to address the corruption within the Afghan government. The culture of impunity needs to be tackled. It’s a huge factor in the rise of the insurgencies,” Reid said. Over the next few weeks President Karzai will be appointing ministers and cabinet people. “The government has lost credibility. We have to be very watchful in terms of the appointments,” Dhanapal said. McChrystal and President Obama have stressed the training of Afghan security forces and the rule of law. Yet, according to Reid the police force is poorly trained. “They do not have enough civilian law enforcement training they are trained as paramilitary troops really. They have to know the law to enforce it,” she said.

Nawid said President Karzai is in a difficult position. “He started the country from scratch. There was nothing, no army, no educational institutions, no economy or civil servants,” she said. While assuring the international community that he wants equality for women through commitments like the millennium development goals that state “achievement of primary education for everyone and the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.” But President Karzai’s actions and desire to retain Shia support appear to contradict these goals.

The Human Rights Watch report highlights in May of 2008 President Karzai pardoned two gang rapists who had served only two years of their 11-year sentence. The middle-aged woman who was raped told Reid she was targeted out of retaliation by a powerful local leader. Spokespeople for President Karzai claimed the decree that resulted in the release of the men was forged.

While the situation that women face is profoundly challenging, they continue to speak out in spite of threats. Reid shared a story about a 13-year-old girl who ran away from the man she was forced to marry. Through a series of unbelievable and courageous steps, the young woman ended up at a safe house in the capital Kabul. While the parliament, local leaders and her husband’s family demanded she go back, the girl refused. Reid said her actions are threatening because it’s a young woman standing up for herself. “She told me she met with the president who told her it was safe to go back to her husband’s family. She said she told him ‘if you think it’s safe why don’t you send your wife or one of your children.” Reid finds great hope in the courage of this young woman whose attempt to demand her rights have not come from outside Western influence. “She knows her rights and is fighting for them,” Reid said.

It is hard to know how the Obama administration will support women’s rights in Afghanistan, as there has been little public attention to the matter. Reid said that sustained work by local Afghan NGO’s is essential. Given the entrenched cultural norms in many sectors of Afghan society it will take more than 18 months to change women’s roles in Afghanistan. “The biggest question in Afghanistan, is if you have a willing partner in the Afghan government,” Reid said.

Editor’s Note: Charity Tooze is a freelance journalist currently working in Jordan. She was the executive producer of Rites of Passage, www.ritesofpassage.tv, a weekly television program by and for young women in the Bay Area. She is currently in the Middle East developing a body of work on Iraqi Refugees as part of her master’s thesis.

Princeton professor Julian Zelizer says some comparisons of Vietnam and Afghanistan have merit.

Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN

On June 17, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson explained to The New York Times reporter James "Scotty" Reston why he had to stay the course in Vietnam by stabilizing the South Vietnamese government so that it could fight communism.

Johnson rejected calls for withdrawal that were being made by liberal Democrats as well as the proposal for neutralization promoted by France's Charles de Gaulle.

"So the only thing you've got left," Johnson said, "is try to make this thing more efficient and more effective and hold as strong as you can and keep this government as stable as you can and try to improve it as you can and that we're doing day and night."

Keep Reading...

AC360°

Even as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives at NATO headquarters in Brussels to discuss fresh troop contributions for Afghanistan, NATO allies are already discussing how to hand the country back to Afghanistan.

In the wake of President Obama's announcement that the U.S. will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, NATO spokesman James Appathurai says the alliance already has commitments from other members for at least 5,000 troops. Other officials from NATO and ISAF put the figure closer to 7,000 based on promises made in private, but not yet announced.

A major concern among NATO allies is how the additional troops will create conditions where Afghanistan will be ready to protect itself. Appathurai cited a “significant shortfall” of trainers to train Afghan army and police, a key component in stabilizing the country. Without help from NATO allies to train those forces, he said it will be harder to make the transition to Afghan control by the July 2011 drawdown of U.S. forces announced by Obama. Supplying trainers and other resources to build the Afghan army and police force could also provide an alternative to some countries reluctant to send more combat troops.

Go here to keep reading and get the facts on Afghanistan and the war.

Fareed Zakaria says that the United States may in fact be scaling down the goals of the military operation

Fareed Zakaria | BIO
CNN Anchor

When President Obama announced plans Tuesday to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, it appeared to be a major escalation of the war in that country. But, foreign affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria says that the United States may in fact be "scaling down" the goals of the military operation.

In an interview with CNN, Zakaria gave the new plan a good chance of succeeding in achieving its more limited objectives. But he said Obama's idea of setting a target date for starting to draw down U.S. troops was a strategic mistake - though he suggested the president may have needed to do so for political reasons.

Zakaria, author and host of CNN's "Fareed Zakaria: GPS," spoke to CNN Wednesday.

CNN: The president outlined an intensive but short-term boost of the military resources in Afghanistan. He didn't call it a surge but is this effectively the same as the Iraq surge?

Fareed Zakaria: Actually I think this is a different surge than the Iraq surge. And not enough people have noticed that - because the president did increase the number of troops and in fact, in many ways the number of troops that he has increased in percentage terms is much larger than the Iraq surge.

Keep Reading...

Fawaz A. Gerges
Special to CNN

President Obama's decision to deploy an additional 30,000 soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan by early 2010 was not a surprise. In Obama's War Cabinet meetings, the question was not whether to send more troops but how many.

Obama's second major military escalation of the conflict this year, the largest single U.S. deployment since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to almost 100,000. There are also 50,000 NATO troops stationed in the country.

Notably, there will be as many troops in Afghanistan as in Iraq at the height of the war between 2003 and 2008.

In his televised speech Tuesday, Obama stressed the limits of the American presence in Afghanistan and set a goal of starting to bring forces home after only 18 months.

Keep Reading...

(Al-Mustaqbal – Lebanon)

Octavia Nasr
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Editor, Mideast Affairs

When President Barack Obama spoke in front of cadets, staff and guests at West Point to lay out his administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan, “an entire Middle East region was paying attention and analyzing his words carefully,” says Asharq Al-Awsat columnist Abdel Rahman al-Rashed.

According to al-Rashed, the biggest threat facing the Middle East today is terrorism. He says Arab governments and ordinary citizens have been waiting for a sign from President Obama since he took office to gauge his level of commitment in fighting terrorism. “Last night we all got our answer and it’s a positive one” said al-Rashed. “We heard a serious U.S. commitment to fight al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That, he says, is a comforting stance from the U.S. that “will encourage local governments to do their part and fight terrorism in their backyards.”

The Middle East region is very complex, and it is going through much turmoil and instability at the moment. Beyond the headlines of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Iraq’s ongoing struggle to establish itself as a sovereign nation capable of securing its citizens and borders, serious problems are brewing elsewhere. In addition to a growing number of al Qaeda-linked terror attacks in North Africa and an alarming Shiite-Sunni tension in countries such as Morocco and Bahrain, fierce clashes are raging on the Saudi-Yemen border. The rugged mountainous region is witnessing daily battles as troops from both countries try to crush a rebellion by a group known as Al-Houthis, that al-Rashed believes has direct ties to al Qaeda. “Everything is connected” he says. “If the U.S. defeats al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Arab governments continue to isolate al Qaeda in the region, all their cells will fall apart.”

Al-Rashed isn’t alone to think that al Qaeda and its allies are widespread and dangerous. He says, “They’re like cancer cells and should be dealt with as such.” He belongs to a group of analysts who believe that al Qaeda can be defeated with the right strategy. “The numbers aren’t important, 30,000 more troops or 3,000 isn’t the issue,” he told me on the phone from Dubai. What matters, he says, is Obama’s message which means commitment. “The message that says we won’t walk away from facing al Qaeda, the message that we believe we can defeat al Qaeda and we will; those are the messages that people in the region wanted to hear and heard last night.”

But not everyone in the Middle East is as optimistic as al-Rashed, skeptics have their say too. On Arab networks, analysts and commentators had mixed feelings immediately following the speech. Some compared the West Point rhetoric to that of President George W. Bush prior to deploying troops to war zones. A panel discussion on the Qatar-owned Al-Jazeera, focused on the injection of the 9/11 attacks into the speech as they called it another “Bush administration fear tactic.” On the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya, which Abdel Rahman al-Rashed is general manager of, post speech discussion focused more on Pakistan where concern was expressed whether the U.S. can be successful in thwarting al Qaeda and Taliban with more boots on the ground.

A cartoon in Kuwait’s Al-Jarida newspaper expresses another kind of skepticism popular in the Arab world. It shows a tired Obama dressed as a U.S. soldier weighed down by the quagmire of Afghanistan having a difficulty to walk but holding in his hand the new strategy for that country. The idea of the quagmire is echoed in another cartoon from Jordan’s Alarab Alyaoum showing President Obama as a U.S. soldier half submerged in water and holding an Exit sign. Lebanon’s Al-Mustaqbal newspaper showed Obama saying “I got the solution” as he falls off the cliff that is Afghanistan. While in Kuwait’s Aljarida a cartoon portrayed Obama as gambling with the “Afghan War Jackpot” and saying, “Bush played this machine for years with no payoff… but I think it’s due.” From Alwatan Newspaper in Qatar a suggestion that U.S. is driving in reverse now in Afghanistan while Alwatan in Oman’s cartoon describes the new strategy as a plan to run away from Afghanistan.

Simple cartoons describe how many in the Arab world view the U.S. at this time in history. Al-Rashed agrees that many Arabs are skeptical but he stresses, “at least it’s a positive image now in comparison to the previous administration.” Judging by the variety of reactions to the speech, it seems that most Arabs would give President Obama the benefit of proving that his rhetoric matches his actions before they pass judgment on his administration.

(Al-Arab Al-Yawm – Jordan)

(Al-Jarida – Kuwait)

(Al-Jarida – Kuwait)

(Al-Watan – Oman)

(Al-Watan Newspaper – Qatar)

President Obama announced yesterday he will be sending 30,000 more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan. But how many troops are currently operating there and, more importantly, who are they? Take a look at this chart to find out!

CNN

Wright and Martin believe that the Karzai administration must be pressured to punish corruption

Ann Wright and Paul Kawika Martin
Special to CNN

President Obama just announced he plans to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, where hatred of the U.S. grows every day. Next door, nuclear-armed Pakistan tilts toward disaster. It's time for Americans to insist on a nonmilitary way out of this mess.

We recently returned from a CodePink study trip to Afghanistan, and our expertise and experience points to a strategy of transitioning from military to political and economic solutions that will help Afghans while making Americans safer.

The first step in providing Afghans security and weakening the Taliban and violent extremists is to remove recruiting incentives. It's time to stop air and Predator drone strikes that tend to kill, injure and terrorize civilians. It's time to stop arbitrary detentions and harsh treatment of prisoners that would be unacceptable here.

While those in major cities live in relative security, rural Afghans fear violence from insurgents or U.S. and NATO forces. Many fear civil war or the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan requires more trusted Afghan police and security forces. These forces are paid only $110 dollars a month - not a living wage - and payments are regularly late. Little wonder these forces are corrupt, poorly motivated and have a high rate of desertion. The Taliban pays its foot soldiers far better.

Keep Reading...

President Barack Obama called Tuesday for Americans to unite in support of the Afghanistan war effort.

Rebekah Sanderlin
Special to CNN

I'm not an auto mechanic, I'm an Army wife, a mother and - when time permits - a journalist. So when my car needs work, I take it to someone with oil on his hands and years of experience looking under hoods. The same is true for plumbing problems, legal issues and medical care.

I don't assume that I know better than the experts. When necessary, I get a second opinion but, ultimately, I always yield to the advice of those who know more than me.

With that in mind, I am thrilled that President Obama has decided to listen to his experts - the military commanders and strategists - and is committing more troops to Afghanistan.

But as an Army wife at Fort Bragg whose husband has already done three tours of duty in Afghanistan, I can't help but close my eyes, grit my teeth and brace myself for the hard days ahead. As happy as I am that the president has finally made a move after months of deliberating, I know that this announcement is likely bad news for me.

Keep Reading...

Peter Bergen | BIO
CNN National Security Analyst

Three senior administration officials outlined on Tuesday some of the concepts and processes that went into President Obama’s new plan for Afghanistan.

Between September 13 and November 23 the president chaired 10 meetings of his national security team to deliberate over the new strategy.

The president agreed with the ground commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal’s assessment from the summer that the key goal of the strategy was to reverse the momentum of the Taliban in the next 12 months. He selected from the menu of troop deployment options the one that got American boots on the ground in the most rapid manner.

There are six objectives those forces will try to accomplish.

First, reverse the momentum of the Taliban in coming months.

Second, deny the Taliban access to key cities and population centers as well as control of major roads.

Third, prevent al Qaeda from regaining a safe haven in Afghanistan.

Fourth, degrade the Taliban to the point that the Afghan army and police can take up responsibility for security in certain districts and provinces.

Fifth, build up the size of the Afghan army to 134,000 by 2010 and also the size of the police so that by the summer of 2011 the U.S. and NATO can start handing over security to the Afghan army in certain areas.

Right now, of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces only one, Kabul province, is entirely under Afghan military and police control. The officials emphasized that the handover to Afghan security services in 2011 would likely be possible only in "some parts of the country."

Sixth, to build up the key institutions of the Afghan government such as the Ministry of the Interior.

To help achieve those goals the US will deploy 30,000 soldiers into Afghanistan and NATO and other countries helping in the effort in Afghanistan are expected to contribute a further 5,000 to 7,000 soldiers.

The cost of the troop deployment will be $35 billion – some of that consumed by servicemen’s salaries and benefits and the rest to be spent in building Forward Operating Bases for the troops of the surge in a country with little infrastructure and also to supply mine resistant troop vehicles known as MRAPS. (In Helmand Province 80 percent of Marine casualties are caused by the mines known as IEDs.)

A further dimension of the strategy is to encourage the “reintegration” of those Taliban fighters willing to lay down their arms, although one official conceded that senior Taliban leaders had shown little interest in taking such offers up, as for the moment, they believe they are winning the war in Afghanistan.

U.S. Marines patrol with Afghan soldiers in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta | BIO
AC360° Contributor
CNN Chief Medical Correspondent

This week we will be talking a lot about Afghanistan and the impact of the President’s speech. Having spent a fair amount of time there, including a trip just a couple of months ago, I am always reminded of the human impact of any conflict. I am reminded there are consequences to all those booms and explosions we see on television. I am reminded of the horrific injuries I saw due to IED explosions where young men and women are robbed of their legs, and their lives. I am also reminded of the remarkable sacrifice the doctors, nurses, medics and all the medical personnel make every single day out there. They truly risk their lives to save the lives of others.

Medicine and the military are embraced in an awkward dance and no where is that more true than in Afghanistan. Because of the terrain, most of the med evac missions are carried out by chopper. They typically have 20 minutes to fly to the patients, 20 minutes to stabilize and treat, and 20 minutes to get the patients to more medical care. It is one golden hour. Right now, even as I write this, these medics are sleeping in forward operating bases just behind the front line troops – with their boots on, and eyes half open in dusty desert tents waiting to get the call. Waiting for a chance to save their fellow soldiers who got the call before them.

Truth of the matter, nearly three-fourths of the time, the call they get is to take care of an Afghan local or soldier. In fact, if you look at the breakdown of operations performed at the coalition force run Kandahar Role III, the largest trauma hospital in the country, most are performed on Afghan patients. The local medical system in Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure to take care of most of these sorts of injuries. There is only one vascular surgeon in the country, two neurosurgeons and really no ability to perform cardiac surgery. It made me wonder what will happen to patients with trauma a year from now or in five or ten years.

Keep Reading...

U.S. troops search for militants in the mountainous Taliban stronghold in Paktika Province in Afghanistan.

David Gergen | BIO
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

In his Afghanistan speech tonight, Barack Obama will face one of the toughest tests of any president in modern times.

Presidents usually seek public support for sending U.S. combat troops into action just after another country has attacked us or threatened our national interest – think FDR after Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman after the invasion of South Korea, John Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis, George H.W. Bush embarking on the Persian Gulf war, George W. Bush after 9/11 and even his decision to invade Iraq. In each case, vital interests seemed at stake, presidents acted decisively and Americans rallied ’round the flag.

But in this case, Obama is asking the public to support an escalation in a war that has already gone on so long that Americans have lost sight of why it is important and are intensely divided over whether we should spend more blood and treasure. The cold reality is that the U.S. government has done a horrible job persuading the American people that the Afghan war matters.

While the President deserves credit for engaging in serious deliberations before acting, his pause for reflection has also gone on so long – 94 days from the day of the McChrystal request to the day of his public response – that he has also sent a clear signal of inner doubts and uncertainty about next steps.

The cost has been high for the President. Four months ago, some 56 percent told Gallup/USA Today that they approved of the way he was handling Afghanistan. By last week, the numbers had reversed: only 35 percent said they still approved while 55 percent disapproved. Americans have always preferred a commander in chief to sound a clear trumpet.

Moreover, as commentator Fred Barnes pointed out a few days ago, Obama’s oratorical magic was much more effective when he was a candidate offering hope than a president urging new policies. His speeches since January have generally inspired more confidence in him than in his prescriptions. Most recently, his health care address to Congress did shore up support for legislation within his own party but after a temporary bump in polls, public opinion continued to slide in the wrong direction.

So, the odds are stacked heavily against him Tuesday night in rallying the country behind the war he envisions. The left is apt to say that whatever he does is too much while the right will say that it is too little. He will have to convince people that what he is doing is just right – in effect, he needs a Goldilocks speech.

The Gallup/USA Today poll of last week suggested how tough that may be. Some 39 percent said bring the troops home; some 37 percent said send 40,000 additional troops; only 10 percent supported a middling option of sending less than 40,000 – the option that Obama will reportedly embrace.

Does it matter whether he can unite a strong majority behind him? Many military experts think it matters a lot. A central lesson of the Vietnam War is that a president must commit the country before he commits the troops. If support is fragile, it can easily melt away over time and nervous politicians may then pull the plug on soldiers who have risked life and limb.

The truth is that it is not President Obama who has the most at stake here Tuesday night – it is our U.S. troops who will live or die in Afghanistan.

Tim Hetherington
Getty Images for CNN

October was the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war in 2001. Roadside bombs are now the biggest threat to U.S. forces in the region. In September, Anderson reported from the front lines of the war against the Taliban and went out on patrol with Marines in Helmand Province.

Take a look at this photo gallery.