2,000 more troops being sent to Afghanistan

I know that an additional two thousand troops being sent to Afghanistan doesn't seem like a lot, but in the eyes of the enemy, it is 2,000 more targets. The war in Afghanistan is slowly but surely escalating to a point that we can't return from without a "loss"

NATO says that most of the 2,000 additional troops would most likely come from the U.S.

I have a friend that is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in a couple of months to train Afghani soldiers. When he first found out he was going, he seemed excited but as the time has wore on and there have been more and more coalition casualties, I think the reality has set in and he seems more distant every day as his deployment date gets closer.

www.cnn.com...

I think Obama needs to really push the Afghanistan conflict and get results in order to get voters back. It comes to no surprise that more troops are being deployed.

While I don't know if that's a good tactic or if more troops will result in more results, I do know that it'll get more violent with more deaths.

Stupid politics.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Tarrok]

I wish the best of luck to our soldiers going over there, as well as the soldiers already there. With that being said, there is a huge difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, as the insurgency is far more organized and determined. Now, this doesn't mean that our troops can't kick but, rather it just means that the mission is defined a lot differently.

If we are going to stay in Afghanistan, I think these additional troops will benefit our troops already there. The last thing we need is a half-*** withdrawal, just as we did in Iraq. If we are going to be there, then we need to be there, period.


--airspoon

[edit on 6-9-2010 by airspoon]