War is for Republicans. Unnecessary war is for radical right-wing neo-cons.

[kentuck]

I am a Democrat. I am not a pacifist. But I do not believe in war unless it is absolutely necessary. I do not believe in peace at any price.

However, with Afghanistan, I ask myself, "Is this war necessary?"

I understand the recent history of the place, with the planning of the attacks of 9/11 and the "mujahadeen" support during the late 70's and the 80's. I understand that bin Laden, like Saddam Hussein, was once our ally.

But I see an army in Afghanistan that is demoralized. We have been there for eight years. With 30,000 more troops, I see more casualties. Many more casualties. I see a large country where 30,000 troops would fit in the parking lot at K-Mart. I question how effective they can be?

I see an escalation that will will only strengthen the Taliban. Perhaps we can bribe them like we did with the enemy in Iraq? Perhaps not? It is a big gamble.

No doubt, the Republicans will be put in a dilemma, whether or not to support the escalation? As usual, they will quibble about the entire war. They will support the President "if he does it right"? They will always leave themselves an opening to take political advantage.

Is it necessary? Are more troops the only answer? When the only tool you have is a hammer, I suppose every problem looks like a nail?

[OHdem10]

1. The Democratic Talking point should be: The Republicans want

us in Afghanistan for 10 years with an open ended committment.

(Every time a Republican whines about establishing a time line
for withdrawal--this should be the Democrats response.