What is it about Democratic hawks that makes them so indistinguishable from Republican hawks? From the AP:
Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy said a strategy decision on new deployments involving the U.S. and other troop-contributing nations would be made within the next few weeks, according to an official transcript released Saturday.
Flournoy, the Pentagon's policy chief, led a U.S. delegation that briefed NATO ambassadors Thursday on the Obama administration's review of the Afghan war. Officials released a transcript of her remarks from that meeting.
"No one is talking about leaving Afghanistan, or even standing pat. We are increasing our commitment and we're talking about how best to do that with both civilian and military resources," Flournoy was quoted as telling NATO ambassadors.
Tell me, Ms. Flournoy, how many thousands of troops NATO is going to be providing, given their limited participation to date and their nations' people also coming out more and more against further involvement in Afghanistan? How many more years, how many more deaths, how many more billions will it take before Afghanistan is "secure"? Honestly, someone needs to clue in Ms. Flournoy about the failed wisdom of following in the footsteps of the "stupidest guy on the face of the planet."
I have never understood the grasping need of Dem politicians to be viewed as being as tough as - and often, as foolish - Repub politicians when it comes to issues of national security. Afghanistan is not vital to American security interests - going after al Qaeda is, and they're in Pakistan. We need a strategy of containment rather than one of nation-building - we can't afford the current strategy, and it's overdue for a change.
