Will more troops really work?

[cyberswede]

Here's a 'toon from back in October - this sums up my worries over the new strategy.



From this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6780722

[HopeHoops]

1. Um, in a word...

No.

[Oregone]

2. Yes, all Afghanis will instantly forget Karzai's stolen election and see his government as legit

The moment each foreign boot hits the ground, it goes to unify the Afghanis under the leader of the puppet government

[joecool65]

3. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because of international involvement

When you had Israel, Pakistan, the US, and Saudi Arabia (among others) on the same side, was there little doubt the Soviets would fail.

[Arctic Dave]

6. What will be the reason when we fail?

[Arctic Dave]

4. The USSR used 800,000 troops, how did that work out?

I guess they didn't have all this cool kill em from your living room couch technology like we do .

[joecool65]

8. Please

The little old Afghans did not defeat the Soviets, massive international aid did the job.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Little ol Afghanistan seems to be doing a pretty good job on the US right now.

By all means, let arrogance lead us in our path.

[joecool65]

10. Please

Afghanistan today is nothing like the Soviet War.

Stop the ridiculous meme that the war today is just like the Soviet War.

[Arctic Dave]

11. OK, how is it different?

Because were doing the bombing now?

[EFerrari]

5. Both Gates and Obama say the idea is to strengthen the Karzai government

and train their army and engage in battle with the areas under Taliban control.

Does any of that sound like it has a chance in hell of working?

[TexasObserver]

7. No, of course not. Not 30,000. Not 60,000. Not 100,000.