Wednesday, October 28, 2009

On Afghanistan: Don't Build Up? (10/28)

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman offers a contrarian view on Afghanistan: while General McChrystal argues for more U.S. troops, Friedman suggests that "thinking about how to reduce our footprint" in Afghanistan may better serve American interests.

What are your reactions after reading Friedman's point of view?

12 comments:

Bbkingml said...

I think that mcchrystal has a good strategy. To send more people over as soon as we can would hurry up the process of war and allow more energy for things such as healthcare.

Victoria said...

I was actually watching a really interesting debate on c-span discussing this. I think we should send more troops but not the full 40,000.

scott said...

I believe this shows the difference between either persons proffession. McChrystal is a comanding officer in the military and his goal to find a way to win the war. Thomas Friedman is a journalist however and his job is to keep an eye on what the goverment, military, and other people are doin this is an example of the media being a watch dog for society.

MeganT said...

I think that General McCrystal is asking too much of the president and the American people. I agree that the war was a just cause a the beginning but now things are different. Thomas L. Friedman is correct when he says that "We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan". We need to focus on pulling out of Iraq and Afganistan and start focusing on problems at home. Obviously what we have been doing for the past 8 years is not working in the best interest of the American people anymore.

Jorge said...

I think sending more troops is a good thing. We have already started this war now we have to finish it. The idea would sound better if the amount of troops being sent were reduced though

Ryan said...

We have invested lots of money and time into this war. We need to finish what we started. If we send more troops hopefully we can accomplish what we need to faster.

rob.bickel said...

McCrhystal has the experience and knowledge to do what it takes to get the job done. Friedman does have valid points but in my opinion, this country's best interest is to win the war and eliminate the threats of further attack on U.S. soil. Without the 40,000 troops, that goal will never be met.

sk8rgr829 said...

I think McChrystal has a sense in what is good for our country and sending more troops can hopefully end the war faster. We have spent so much time on this war that we need to do whatever we can to end it.

Radhika said...

I think this article brings up good points but I agree with sending more troops. Though sending these troops will cost 30 billion dollars, that is only .2% of our nations deffecit. So sending troops is not hurting our economy in any way. The 70,000 troops that are already their would be sacraficing their time and their lives for nothing if we just retreat out of Afghanistan. The point of sending 30,000 more troops will aid the 70,000 already there. The objectives of sending more trrops is for 1. to combat terrorism, 2. To rebulild the Afgan government and remove all of the corruption plaguing the country, and 3. To strengthen and train the Afghan military so that they can ultimately fight the taliban and protect their country leaving the troops to finally come home. In my opinion I think that sending these addition 30,000 troops will be in the United States best interest.

Nick said...

I believe we should respect McChrystal's decision for sending more troops because he is trying to do what he believes is best for the United States. If it takes more troops to end the war faster then it should definitely be done since we have already spent so much time in Afghanistan.

Andrea said...

McChrystal's decision is wise and i believe is what is intently best for our country. Reducing our involvement in Afghanistan in my own opinion is what would make us look more as a "Weak America" rather than a "Strong America" that Friedman references to. Our country made a decision and we need to stick to it. Friedman seems biased in the view point he has on our situation with afghanistan, he needs to look at both sides.

Alex Fine said...

I think it's a good idea to send torrps overseas in order to protect the liberties that can be assured here in the United States, but there are some good points that were statated in the article. When Friedman discussed his views of a "Strong America," I think he's right to argue that the United States would be able to have much more control of its priorities, yet I think that he needs to understand that this war on terrorism must be kept under control.