Healthcare, Afghanistan, and other ways that the Democrats = MASSIVE FAIL

The military’s anticipated request for more troops in Afghanistan has divided senior advisers to President Obama as they determine the proper size and mission of the American effort there, officials said Thursday, according to today’s New York Times.

Vice-President Joe Biden wants to keep things tamer in Afghanistan, but only because he considers stabilizing Pakistan the more urgent goal. Meanwhile, Richard Holbrooke, special envoy to the region, also agrees that Pakistan is a problem the United States will eventually have to do something about, but sees more troops as vital to “protecting Afghan civilians and undermining the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” Hillary Clinton also wants more troops in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is sort of concerned the U.S. may look like occupiers, but then again, he sounded pretty supportive of sending more troops during a press conference on Thursday, the Times reports.

Military strategists believe General Stanley A. McChrystal, the guy who took over all American and NATO forces in Afghanistan in June, will ask President Obama for one of three things. On the low side, McChrystal could ask for 10,000 to 15,000 troops, or Stanley “Goldilocks” McChrystal may ask for a medium-sized 25,000 troops, or he may ask Obama for a whopping 45,000 additional troops for Afghanistan.

Notice the parameters of legitimate debate extend from sending a “moderate” 10,000 men and women into Afghanistan to the vast 45,000 figure. On the political spectrum, debate strategies always occur on the right. “Do we sent X amount of soldiers to die, or Y amount?” At the same time, the people on the left shouting, “Send none! You have no plan in Afghanistan! Al-Qaeda doesn’t have a structured hierarchy that can easily be dismantled! Killing more civilians increases their recruitment! This war will go on forever!” aren’t even invited into the debate room.

Troops levels are the only acceptable figures to include in the discussion. No one mentions the 11,000 Afghan troops killed, or 7,500 Afghan civilians, or the 680 US troops who have died (all estimates because no one seems overly concerned with keeping records of these things.) Those that do try to include the latter figures are dismissed as unserious leftist radicals. These silly hippies are considered superfluous to the war debate since they are inherently anti-war, and anti-war voices have no business contributing to the war planning. After all, they’ll say no to additional troops, and what fun is there in that?!

[article continues at link]