I thought it was an overseas contingency operation...

Scooter isn't saying spend more money. She is saying instead of spending what we are now and plan to continue spending on war- redivert these efforts and funds to building schools and other infrastructure...

I do understand what Scooter was saying. If we had gone in to Afgan with school building along side our military actions, it would have worked wonders. But it's far too late. Literally trillions of dollars were diverted to "That Other War" and incredible amounts of it were wasted on half-assed rebuilding of that infastructure. To me, the single most obscene aspect of the Iraq war was the profiteering.

Do you believe these are the objectives our decision makers are looking to meet now?

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.

The plan represents a key step in the Obama administration's drive to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress in the war nearly eight years after it began.

Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to noncombat duty, such as guards or lookouts, or those on clerical and support squads.

"It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers," said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Officials have spoken in recent days about aspects of the plan.

The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, officials said.

U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan -- latimes.com

News like this doesn't make me hopeful. Obama being tentative about troup build-ups indicates he is not committed and may represent a step toward a true quagmire. Bush clearly didn't suffer from "public opinion fatigue" on this issue. I feel this is the primary reason he won the 2004 election.

The whole LATimes article is worth a read as it's quite informative.

I do understand what Scooter was saying. If we had gone in to Afgan with school building along side our military actions, it would have worked wonders. But it's far too late. Literally trillions of dollars were diverted to "That Other War" and incredible amounts of it were wasted on half-assed rebuilding of that infastructure. To me, the single most obscene aspect of the Iraq war was the profiteering.

Not just the profiteering (which is apallingly bold) - we could build HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of schools with the amount of money we outright "lost" in transit!!! :angry:

An opinion I heard that made sense was this change back to war on terror might be intentional considering the evaluation taking place about an increase in troops. I think the guy simply slipped and said something he was instructed not to say. Any thoughts?

George Will's column was printed in it's entirety in the NW Daily News. To sum it up we have nowhere near the resources to ever "clear, hold, and build" all of Afganistan. No amount of troops can do it. It went further to say that the Brookings Institute did a study that said that Afgan was the second most failed state besides Somalia. There is no real government or nation to rebuild. We just have to get out and pay more attention to Pakistan, which really matters.

How exactly do you ignore Afghanistan and focus on Pakistan? There is a lot of back and forth across the rather arbitrary border between the two.

I'm not sure how to do this. I guess we simply have to give Pakistan whatever it needs to keep a viable government and military(grand scale bribery seems to be our favorite form of foreign aid) The whole situation is "seriously flawed". Makes you wonder what our state department was doing Pakistan for the last eight years, doesn't it?

I'm not sure how to do this. I guess we simply have to give Pakistan whatever it needs to keep a viable government and military(grand scale bribery seems to be our favorite form of foreign aid) The whole situation is "seriously flawed". Makes you wonder what our state department was doing Pakistan for the last eight years, doesn't it?

They were trying to keep it from becoming a failed state. Which was basically the same approach we've followed since the late 80's. Musharaff isn't the best guy in the world to support, but he does have control over their nuclear arsinal. If the extremists overthrough the government there, all hell breaks lose.

Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't Musharaff out of power now. I thought they elected somebody new. The real concern is a major portion of the Pakistani people do not regard the Taliban as necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps this is where we need to be building schools and doing humanitarian aid to get the polpulace to at least consider that maybe we are the good guys.