.
December 1st, 2009
07:33 PM ET

Evening Buzz: Pres. Obama's New Afghanistan Strategy

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

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

Maureen Miller
AC360° Writer

Pres. Obama says the war in Afghanistan is not lost. But he says for several years it has "moved backwards." He has a new strategy that he hopes will change that course.

The commander-in-chief announced tonight at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York he is deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in the first part of 2010.

Pres. Obama is also seeking more support from NATO allies.

The boost will mean about 100,000 U.S. troops will be in the region, along with about 45,000 NATO troops.

Pres. Obama is ordering the Pentagon to have the new troops in Afghanistan within six months. Pres. Obama said the additional forces "will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

Pres. Obama's Senior Adviser David Axelrod discussed the new approach this evening on CNN's "The Situation Room".

"We feel that the sooner that we get in there we can stop the momentum of the Taliban, train up Afghan troops and begin to transfer authority or responsibility for the security there, and that's - that's our goal," said Axelrod.

A Pentagon official admits the six month timeline to get the new troops on the ground is "very aggressive". Though, the official is confident the military can get the job done.

What do you think of Pres. Obama's decision? Share your thoughts below.

Adding 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan could be a political liability for Pres. Obama. Already some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are voicing their concerns over the Afghan war strategy.

"At a time of great economic crisis here in the United States, I would respectfully suggest that rather than nation-building in Afghanistan we should do a little more nation-building here at home," said Rep. Jim McGovern, (D) Massachusetts, at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

"I am here today because of my concern that we are about to wear out and break the military," said Rep. Walter Jones, (R) North Carolina, at the same event.

Since the war in Afghanistan began following the September 11th terrorist attacks more than 900 Americans have been killed in the region.

We'll have all the angles on Pres. Obama's speech tonight on 360°. We hope you can join us for our special coverage. See you then!


Filed under: Maureen Miller • The Buzz
soundoff (65 Responses)
  1. Karen

    How quick we are to judge President Obama and how soon we forget the past administration. Rememer we have been in Afghanistan for 8 years and also in Iraq where we didn't need to be. I don't think anything President Obama does will be right with the conservatives who have lost the power to think! A time frame is good or would the conservatives like us to be there another 8 years. The last administration put us there and they should have finished the job. The enemy is smarter than us; as they know they are breaking this country financially, killing our soldiers, and disabling them. Just one more comment: Former Vice-President Cheney is out of office now and he should stay home and be quiet just like Senator McCain's daughter stated on television some time ago when he first started to stir the pot. Keep up the good work President Obama.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:42 pm |
  2. alex armas

    Agree or disagree we need to support the inevitable. I'm only 18 but I understand the importance of eliminating terrorist and protecting humans no matter what race or color. Our troops are saving lifes therefore how is this decision wrong?

    December 1, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
  3. Craig

    In Vietnam we started with a few hundred advisors and at the height of the war had over 500,000 troops on the ground. It was a small country. In ten years we lost over 50,000 troops, several hundred thousand wounded, over 5000 aircraft, and countless artillery, tanks, rifles and other equipment worth billions of dollars. We built a huge infrastructure to support the war including roads, airports, runways, buildings, and a couple of seaports. We provided training and equipment to our South Vietnamese allies. It wasn't enough. Recently, I heard another estimate of how long it will take to build the infrastructure, government, and competent military to sustain Afghanistan. It will take at least ten years and then – maybe. Do you think our military and their families can sustain combat rotations for the next ten years – 2020. Do you think our government can afford to pay to support operations for another 10 years? On the other hand, do you think we can accomplish all of the things that need to be done in 18 months to establish a firm government? You must be joking. I just wish politicians would face reality and speak the truth to the American people. Get out now.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
  4. George

    A decision not easily made by our leader and proud I am of him for making it. Remind u I must a war not chosen by us it is yet a war we must finish. Get in and get out we will with Osama in cuffs. After which the fire that fuels these extremist we must put out by following its pillars of smoke rising from the Israely/Palestinian Conflict. A lesson we must learn I hope and pray history does not repeat

    December 1, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
  5. Libby

    President Obama began his journey as President with the statement of bringing troups home. The President of the United States is responsible for the lives and lively-hood of the entire United Sates. Evidently, the President has acquired knowledge during his new position to convince him that action is required for preserving the United States.

    I thank Mr. Cooper for his show because I did not realize the magnitude of drugs available in Afghanistan (I always wondered where all the drugs came from) – who was it that said 'war on drugs.’ There seems to be some sort of strange twist here. When America was posing their 'war on drugs' years ago, maybe it should have been directed at the source as opposed to incarceration of the end-user (Americans).

    December 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
  6. Mobarak Haider

    As I know Afghanistan and my country Pakistan I strongly believe that any measures, war are developement,are going to be equally meaningless in the present situation. Two measures are indispensible. A short term measure involve Russia and China to take equal burden of war aganist terror and disruption which equally threatens them. Their participation in this war will also stop supplies to insurgents. Why don't we discuss the question who supplies them weapons. Second is the long term measure challege the doctrine of Islamic supermacy through international support, on UN level. People of Pak -Afghan region must outgrow the theory that Islam is for ever and for everywhere. Without these meaures fresh taliban will continue to emerge.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
  7. hank greenberg

    Obama used his exceptional talent in giving a great speech and he deserves an "A+" grade for speech making. His speech was geared to the general American public of the average working man and the housewife. However, Obama gets a failing grade of "F" for the Commander-in-Chief role. He tried to pass himself off as a Commander-in-Chief by giving the speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point. But the cadets were not fooled - they already knew that Obama was a stupid moron with an IQ of 35 regarding military matters. The cadets clapped because they were polite, and at times they were impressed with his fancy rhetoric, and they gave Obama respect because his is the President. But retgarding any military matters Obama wiped out with a big zero. I have been a military historian all of my life and Obama's speech was totally void of anything really military. On television I saw one make cadet sleeping with his head down, and a female cadet having trouble keeping her eyes open. If i, myself, were addressing the cadets at Eisenhour Hall on the military situation in Afghanistan, I would certainly have gotten the emotional focus of the cadets, and stirred thier emotions with a sharp and detailed military analysis.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm |
  8. Lloyd Knapp

    I support Obama's plan for 3 reasons:

    First, It serves notice to Hamid Karzai. He is dead meat unless he gets his rear in gear.

    Second, It lets the Afghan people know how long they have to get their act together. They don't really want the Taliban back.

    Third, it gives us a target date to know when our troops are coming home. We can now see an end to this awful war.

    As for Dick Cheney, he had 8 years to do something over there, and the arrogant bungler didn't do diddly-squat.

    Obama was very presidential today, he made a good decision, and he deserves support. Like it or not - he's on his way to a good legacy.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  9. Adrian

    Damned if you do, damned if you dont . The President said he's beefing up the troops so he can safely get the bulk of them out in 18 months. He said we have spent enough money and lives over there and we need to get out, but at the same time its unreasonable to think we can we can bring them all home next month. He made a measured and thoughtful decision. I support you President Obama!

    December 1, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  10. Zach Dennis

    I've said this in numerous dicussions and I'll say it yet again. Why are we trying to Govern other countries? We have to many problems in America, so let's work on that.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
  11. Jack

    Obama was visibly out of character this evening. He struggled a bit with his message, at least in terms of brining people to the center on this issue. This affirms to me that he is not totally in agreement with the direction he has chosen, but I assume that anyone in that position would struggle in making this very complicated decision, particularly where there is no clear victory in sight. Killing two birds with one stone- build up and pull down- may just be the best strategy.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
  12. Abit

    President Obama's new plan about Afghanistan was not really his decision, he sound like very nervous about it . Hopefully, he doesn't like to send these troops to war

    December 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
  13. alex armas

    The presidents decision to send more troops was the right one. We have to set the afgah government up with a safe and reliable structure that protects its people. We have to come together as one and stop being a divided nation. Let your leaders lead and help the situation.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:17 pm |
  14. JAQ

    I am very disappointed with he's decision! We voted for change not the same old disgrace! Our nation is taking a big plunge! I wonder what is going through our president's mind right now. Everyone is hoping our nation pulls through but mean while 30,000 more troops are being sent out there, our health care? what health care?Jobs should be created! We should focus and protect our country and our people!

    December 1, 2009 at 10:16 pm |
  15. helen raisz

    Great panel.. Sanjay, Christiane, and my hero Dennis Kucinich.
    Obama can't fool all of the people all of the time with knowledgable people reporting . Nic, Peter, Michael. Great team.
    And while we're talking about war, how about a war on drugs, and the opium fields which support Karzai? and fill our prisons with primarily youmng Black Americans.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  16. Robin Parker

    I think the President has made the right choice. I am a US Army vet. 1960-1970. What upset my last nerve is all the people that are giving their professional opinions that have never serve one day in any army. To include Mr. Dick Cheney in fact for him to be such a war advocate make me sick to my stomach. My son is serving now in the Army and so did my father. Thank you for your time.

    December 1, 2009 at 10:11 pm |
  17. zack

    Dear Anderson & America, Where to start ??? All I can simply say as a 25 year old american civilian is what the hell happened to this country. 800 billion dollar stimulus bye bye!!! We have been using blood and bullets going on half a millenia when will we use our brains. What happened to the real focus on our home and home defense? If the first 350 billion of our stimulus spent was given to the working class we wouldnt be in this economical BELLYFLOP! As far as afghanistan goes as a reg citizen will tell you this is another black hole financially, again goodbye stimulus efforts to the war and goodbye countless lives. This problem is now unfixable. Thanks alot american facists!!!

    December 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm |
  18. Mike, formerly from Syracuse

    Obama's failure to define victory means that ultimately this will fail.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
  19. Gina Rosetti

    It is absolutely amazing how so many commentators know how to fight this war better than the President, especially Republicans who could not get this done in the 8 years they had. The only difference is the President has to be responsible for all these troops lives and carry the burden of that the rest of his life, and the commentators do not. No one seems to realize that he is accepting responsibility for this war and the hard decision he had to make. Everyone has an opinion, but no one has to carry the burden as much as he does. What about a draft? I agree the military and their families carry the weight on this with him so I say unless you have real solutions SHUT UP and lets all hope for the best!

    December 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
  20. Dennis

    Okay, I have only heard mentioned maybe once or twice the other costs paid and why this decision can't be open ended or taken lightly. That cost is in lives and other sacrifices by troops AND their families. The military is an instrument of policy and it is will be unusual under any administration to hear a service person complain about what they VOLUNTEERED to do. Most military people are aware of the risks but put it on the line so where does the American public and the world think the 30,000 troops are going to come from? There a things the public doesn't understand or hear on a widespread basis about service to our country during these times. The suicide rate amongst active and former military service personnel has risen significantly. The rate of divorce is most probably several points higher than average. The stresses of continual deployments have taken their toll but you will not hear our loyal service persons complain. It's important to make sure we are focused on the mission, have an objective, and be smart about all this while not taking lightly the other tolls. The military man and woman will do their duty and unfortunately like our heroes from Vietnam, are getting more support. You'll notice no cadets at West Point stood up and yelled "you lie", because no matter who is in office they respect the office and will continue to sign the blank check which promises up to and including their lives to do what our country asks.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:44 pm |
  21. Larry

    One would think that when it comes to a war that the democrats would let up on their anti-conservative rant and realize that we are ALL americans.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:42 pm |
  22. Straus Davis

    I really think The President, tried to balance competing interests. The Nation, and its economy, and the War, and what it takes in manpower, money and other resources. He knows that the Nation is under seige. We are broke. We don't have the resources, to build another nation anywhere, while our people are out of jobs, and cannot afford health care, he must focus resources to get this nation moving again. He knows that we cannot fight a war, if we cannot feed our people, if we cannot provide health care for our people, if we cannot provide jobs for our people. I think he knows that he must lead the country, not just the war. I agree with The President, we must share our resources and focus on rebuilding this country, and use the technologies we have to help protect us and defeat those that try to harm us.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:40 pm |
  23. steve oldham

    As a high school teacher of social ethics at a Jesuit institution, my response to the President's speech is that "soft power", not military force, will ultimately be the only viable response in Afghanistan. Read "Three cups of Tea" and "The Places In Between" for a correct reading of this region. It is a de-centralized tribal society where the majority of rural people mistrust the corrupt central government. What wins the day are relationships with the local tribal leaders and villages delivering small scale developmental projects like water pipelines, schools, health care delivery, agricultural and housing projects. Drone missiles, cluster bombs, large scale corporate projects, etc. will not win the hearts of the people that America is about friendship, social justice and self-rule. Eventually, troops will leave and the historical tribal forces will remain. The real losers as usual in war are the common people and the Truth. The winners are the Lockheed Martins, the Blackwaters, the Halliburtons and the Exxons.
    Listen to Michael Ware. He seems the only one who has the guts to speak reality and the truth to power on your network.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:37 pm |
  24. Douglas Retiree Army

    All of you, before you condemn, go where I have gone and see the things that my son and other soldiers have seen and had to do. Pres Obama did not send us to war, but he has to deal with it now. If it was as easy as all of you are saying, pullout, walkaway, leave, stop – exactly which one of those can be done first. If it was that easy then Bush could have done it before he left office. If all this stuff was that easy, ask yourself something. Why didn't the last Admin just do it. War is not something you just get up and walk away from, that will get you a bullet in the back. If nothing else, Mr President take your time, do it right and bring my son (on his 4th tour) and all the other brave soldiers home, preferable "Alive"

    December 1, 2009 at 9:37 pm |
  25. Tammy, Houma, LA

    I don't care about the rhetoric. I don't care about the talking heads and their "expert" opinions. I don't care about ideology. I don't care about broken political promises (if you were gullible enough to believe them, oh well). Here's what I know. In 2005 a childhood friend died of injuries sustained in an IED attack in Iraq. I have another friend over there right now. I have a cousin who will be leading troops in Afghanistan starting next year for as along as it takes. So what I care about is that my friend who died didn't do that in vain. I care that the one over there now comes home safely and stays safe next year when he returns to Iraq. I care that my cousin and his troops come home safely once they do what they need to do. Whatever it takes, however much money, however many resources need to be used to make that happen for our families and for the rest of the families of the men and women over there is all that matters. Those men and women are worth every penny of those billions, every ounce of sweat, every drop of blood and tears it takes to get their missions done and get them home. Winning this so the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have freedom, so we are safer matters. No timeline or monetary amount can be placed on that one. Too bad our POTUS and his cronies lost the memo.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:36 pm |
  26. Pete

    I believe that those who are criticizing the target withdrawl date, saying that the Taliban/Al Qaeda will just hunker down and outwait the deadline, are missing something or have not thought their position through.

    The Coalition forces are currently exerting pressure, and will be exerting more pressure as more troops arrive. The only way for the insurgents to hold what they have, is to exert pressure back. If they do try to "turtle" and just outwait the deadline, what will happen is that they will be hunted, discovered, and here's the key – LOSE territory. All the while, if there is less fighting, that allows more effort to be put forth in training and bolstering the Afghan armed forces.

    Anyone can tell you it is always easier to keep something moving than get it started from a standstill. If insurgents allow that territory to be lost while they try to wait out the withdrawl, they will face a huge uphill battle later on, in trying to re-acquire that territory. In addition, it makes sense that in the meantime, many of them will be rooted out, captured, killed...so they will end up being a weaker force 2-3 yrs down the road when Coalition forces do withdraw.

    So I don't see the deadline as a risk at all. It puts pressure on the Afghan government, so they can't just sit back and wait for the Coalition to do it all...and, let's remember that Pres. Obama also CLEARLY stated that even this target draw-down will depend on conditions on the ground. If things aren't going well, he's not going to pull out just because he set a date 18 months before.

    I think overall it's a decent plan. In a perfect world, yes, he'd send more of an overwhelming force, and try to strong-arm Pakistan, but in today's world, he still has to be a manager...to get the job done with the least amount of resources possible. The US public is split on this, so he can't afford to go all-in as some would like. Politics aside, I think he would (I think GW Bush would've as well), but that's not realistic. No matter what he does, Obama has to strike a balance, and from what I heard, I think he's done that.

    Whether or not it's enough, time will tell.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:32 pm |
  27. Bala

    It is correct decision to send more troops to Afghanistan because Obama and US military has no other choice. However it is very dangerous and futile to give a timetable of three years.
    How can U.S change the mindset of Afghans in three years ?
    Problem there is in the mindset of people. For hundreds of years they have liked the culture of war mongering, oppression towards woman, extremist Islamic views and very strong affinity to their clan (and there are hundreds of clans).
    Only way you can fix Afghanistan is by giving people in Afghanistan and Pakistan modern education and create an entire young generation that believes in democratic values, equality of religion etc. and most importantly educate female population as well as male population.
    How can this be done in three years or even 6 years ?
    Even if U.S does this Afghanistan, there still remains the problem of people in Pakistan because they are very much interconnected. The International boundaries of Afghanistan/Pakistan are only on paper.
    Unless U.S is willing to stay in Afghanistan for 20+ years and also takes on the task of educating people in both Afghanistan and Pakistan it is not going to win the war. It is only going to delay the end result which is return of Taliban or something like Taliban under different name. Pakistanis are very smart about changing the name of controversial militant groups.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:29 pm |
  28. Lori

    Hopefully this decision will bring a rapid end to the war in Afghanistan. I am glad we are staying there but concerned about having enough resources to help ourselves and fight two wars.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:27 pm |
  29. Bob Edwards, Charlotte

    I voted for change! The banks are still being allowed to eat us to death. The credit card companies are still eating us alive, and given time to do so. Healthcare...well, whatEVER that's all about anymore! And it is still not legal to be Gay and in the military, yet as of tonight's address, thousands of Gays will be sent in to fight a war for something, but do we know what? Will they know what? Has our president become Barak O'Bush? I'm so disappointed tonight. The only other choice was McCain! Should I have stayed home from the polls last November. I feel like Obama doesn't "get it" anymore. What's happened to change? Aren't "We The People"?

    Just sick in Charlotte!

    December 1, 2009 at 9:27 pm |
  30. JoAnne

    great national security panel discussion. It's good to hear the unfettered, knowledgeable views. Please continue it.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
  31. jeane

    I will support the decision and watch what happens over the 18 month time. I also support a war tax to pay for the current mission.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:18 pm |
  32. Thanks CNN

    Your coverage tonight is amazing with the Mideast panel. It's so much more insightful and valuable to have people speak to the issue "who live and cover it" rather than the regular political talking heads (left / right – blah, blah).

    Kuddos.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:18 pm |
  33. Larry

    Obama continues to show his arrogance to both those who did and did not vote for him.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
  34. Tim Gibson

    All I can say after listening to Obama speak this evening is God help us all. As was mentioned on CNN by one guest on the panel, the only thing good that came out of his speech was that there were not any gate crashers present at West Point, but even on that front we may not know for sure until Facebook is checked tomorrow morning.

    December 1, 2009 at 9:05 pm |
  35. Andrew

    I believe most of what pres. Obama said bout this beign an a national or un group effert.Most who oppose this are the ones who didnt win the election. Some who believe like me there is a way to affectively leave but 33 billion more dollars to do so is a bit extreme thats about as much to go see if water is on the moon. Lets see if other countries contribute then agree to help according to this ten war were we have paid in the trillions. A limit on the time frame in which we are to remove troops is a hope and a dream. Let our country leave when the job is done our country is there oviously for the long haul. Stick it out just to please certain groups was there given a deadline. Pork barreling if you will at its best.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:55 pm |
  36. cb

    As an American I want to support our President. I genuinely believe Obama's heart is in the right place and to me he represents a realistic view of all American's. I am not sure that I agree with his plan. I think it's a shame that our military forces under Bush didn't get the job done way back in 2002. They missed their opportunity and allowed the Taliban to grow and gain support that has spilled over into Pakistan as well as other countries. These are scary times indeed. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I want a simple existence!!!

    December 1, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
  37. Thomas

    Conservative detractors here in the US seem confused. On the one hand they say Obama's timetable for troop withdrawal is too specific. Other conservatives say it's too vague. In my view that makes that part of Obama's speech perfect. The insurgents in Afghanistan will be as confused as our conservatives here.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
  38. Ruby Coria LA., CA.

    Where is the first protest going to be at? Enough Lives & MONEY!! oh the money. Bring those Yankees Home! I am Not down for this!! The President is Blowing it! & I love him, but not now.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:45 pm |
  39. Kim

    President Obama sounded very "Republican" tonight. Invoking 9/11 – strong military – telling us about recent "near misses." Was I the only one who felt that way?
    I did notice that applause waited until almost 30 minutes into his speech – a reaction he's not used to. His face lit up after that.... He feeds on that.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:41 pm |
  40. John Goulet

    I'm very disappointed with the Obama's plan to push the Taliban into the territory of the war lords in Pakistan. This provides a safe haven and provides the war lords with a trained army. Pakistan borders the ocean so receiving shipsments and the ability to ship out around the troups and back to Iran is enhanced! In WWII you would surround the enemy not provide an escape route to the wealthy war lords and ocean ports! The time table is clearly set to create a false impression of success for the next election. The Taliban can safetly come back, well supplied and have several years of training. Third his speech falsely says the majority of the Taliban is not in Iraq but in Afganistan. The fact is that these tropps are very mobile and go where they can be most effective. The Muslims united to drive the Americans out of Iraq. President Bush drove them out of Iraq. With President Obama's plan the Taliban will just go back to Iran once the troops are out. Fourth he is leaving out the proposed "War Tax" and not making them pay the cost of protecting their country will barrels of oil. The American people are being held hostage with the taxes, national debt and high price of oil. They are winning in the war in the long run. The Taliban is using the same financial strategy that the United States used to break the back of the USSR. This is what happens when you elect a president with no military experience and a huge self serving poliical agenda .

    December 1, 2009 at 8:41 pm |
  41. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    I heard the speach aqnd it was a whole lot of nothing that ive heard before with George Bush except George Bushes speaches was more convencing absalutly not impresed .

    December 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm |
  42. skygal

    President Obamas expression says it all!! Who is he trying to convince?? Himself??

    December 1, 2009 at 8:38 pm |
  43. William Kaufman

    Hallelujah, Obama actually Looked directly into the camera twice during his speech, once at the beginning for a few seconds and then about 19 minutes later. If he wants to sell his strategy, he had better do more of that. Look us in the face when you say that instead of reading off that teleprompter all the time.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:37 pm |
  44. Mary

    I refuse to believe that War is the answer to so much world violence today. May God help us.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:36 pm |
  45. Dan, Idaho Falls

    Let me be clear. The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan allow the building of bases to use as pincers against Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Everything else you hear is rhetoric.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:33 pm |
  46. John

    Mr. Obama had me in the first part of his speech at west point then lost me when he placed politics and his own ego into the speech. Then when I though it couldn’t get any worse he throws in 18 months time line. OMG…

    John

    December 1, 2009 at 8:19 pm |
  47. Mike, formerly from Syracuse

    The decision to send troops is right, very late, but right. The decision to announce a withdrawal date just gave Al Queada the date they win. All they have to do is lay low and they know we'll be gone. It was a moronic mistake by an obviously unqualified Commander-in-Chief. You don't end wars based on a calendar, but by victory (a word Obama NEVER uses) or defeat. Obama just choose defeat.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm |
  48. Annie Kate

    One of Obama's main promises on the campaign was to pull our troops out and bring them home. Now he's not only not going to do this but is going to commit to 2 more years and move our troops to Afghanistan from Iraq. This move not only goes against his campaign promises that he was elected on but will entail more debt – something we do not need right now.

    Sounds like an interesting show and am looking forward to seeing it. I'm sure Anderson and his panels will cover the topic most thoroughly.

    December 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm |
  49. Cynthia Fore

    i believe we *must* help the afghan ppl secure their nation. it's unfortunate that the economy has tanked world-wide, but our primary concern should be national security.. and that means fighting terrorism where ever we r able. has every1 forgotten bin laden? he was the reason 4 going into afghanistan w/ our troups. capturing or killing him was our goal. we may never accomplish that goal, but we may be able 2 prevent another bin laden like character from emerging from afghanistan. i wonder.. if any1 has asked the troops there, what they think about this new plan? jm2cw

    December 1, 2009 at 7:53 pm |
  50. Constance Saint Albin

    I am very disappointed in Obama's decision, I voted for him for many reasons but one of the main reasons was to stop both of these wars! Very unhappy with his plan, these wars are bankrupting our nation and as a result, the world, to say nothing of the all the young people we are losing every day! Shame on us! As happy as I was the day Obama was elected, is how sad I am today with his actions regarding these wars! ENOUGH!!!!!

    December 1, 2009 at 7:50 pm |
1 2