More troops in Afghanistan: Voices from the USA

US President Barack Obama has ordered 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan but warned America would begin to withdraw its military forces by 2011.

BBC website readers from the USA have been telling us what they think of the strategy.

Therese Donnelly's son is joining the forces

When Barack Obama announced that he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan, I didn't like the decision.

It didn't help that I have a son going into the armed services. But I've listened to it closely and now can see that he has a timeline in place, and a plan to hand over power to the Afghan government.

I think it's the right strategy.

I don't know if we will ever be successful in Afghanistan. I'm not sure that their government is strong enough to ever totally control the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

I was saddened by Obama's remarks because I voted for him and believed in his promise for change.

I think change was much needed, particularly in our foreign politics. However, today the president seemed to be making the same old mistakes that we made before. He is not doing good in the Middle East - he's inspiring Islamic radical reaction.

As far as American interests in Afghanistan go, I don't see that we can win.

Historically there are examples, the British and the Russians, have both come to grief trying to pacify Afghanistan.

I think this is a waste of lives, and of hundreds of billion of dollars that we don't have.

I don't think a hundred thousand troops could help win this war.

It could make a big difference as the surge did in Iraq, but the absurd declaration that it will last only a certain amount of time (18 months) is tantamount to leaving the hen house open for the foxes after we leave. It implies that the president has no stomach to stay the course. Suppose the outcome is still in doubt after 18 months? Then what? Bush never said this when he announced the Iraq surge. Obviously President Obama is trying to placate his left wing supporters. I call it wishy washy.
Bill Firshein, Middletown

If it's going to be done then do it right. Don't tie the hands of the generals behind their back and expect victory. My only concern is will President Obama stand firm with his decision or will he start to waffle when the going gets challenging?
Rich, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The "surge" as planned will secure a retreat and withdrawal in good order. As someone old enough to have seen the horrors and chaos of the abandonment of Saigon, I'd say that's a good thing. Nobody wants Afghanistan to become another Vietnam. The clear, but yet unspoken, goal is Pakistan.
Susan Kraykowski, Monroe

This war should never have started

I do not believe that Obama has any clue as to what he is doing currently. Most of us did not vote for him to increase troops in Afghanistan. I strongly believe that this war should never have started, and needs to simply end. The Taliban may be incredibly strong, but do we really need to send 30,000 or more men to die? It is absurd. To announce a withdrawal date of 2011 is just as absurd. Retreat... admit defeat.... speak of peace.
Patricia, New Orleans

Something has to be done to change the current situation. Obama's plan lacks enough details to provide some wiggle room that will surely be needed. I like the idea of creating a timeline to put pressure on the people of Afghanistan to become more involved in this process. If you can't get the citizens involved then what is the point?
Bob, Richmond, VA

I believe that increasing the troops in Afghanistan was a necessary step for maintaining what President Obama calls, our national security. While I am opposed to the idea of war, I also agree with Obama when he states that we must give our troops a definite plan and purpose to fight for. Setting a timeline is necessary for organisation and morale. When you have a goal of completing something by a certain time you are less likely to procrastinate and are able to see the silver lining.
kdubjackson, San Jose, CA

We've lost!

President Obama's strategy follows a military optimism that is not realistic. The surge will only kill more civilians, embitter all people and provoke an augmentation of armed resistance to our unwelcome occupation. Afghanistan has had no satisfactory reconstruction of any kind, and the occupiers merely destroy even more. The people of Afghanistan clearly now hate foreign troops more than the Taliban. We've lost!
Conrad Borovski, Menlo Park, California

Sadly no one can end this fight. If all the troops from all countries leave today, there would be no change. If all the troops from all countries stay, the only change will be more of those troops will perish. Until people want a different life no change will ever be made. Since one cannot win as we understand winning, let's have no more of our young people perish. My family has given lives already for freedom. It was against a defined foe, in a defined location. No more.Buck, Garland

We need to be there long enough for the Afghan government to train and protect its people

President Obama is making a move that only appeases in the short term. We have been there over eight years and only now troops are being added. This will be the beginning of bringing stability for the Afghan people but for only 18 months. Look how long it took the Iraqi government to train their people to give some sense of security. What makes the President think 18 months is enough. I don't want our men and women to be in an endless war but we need to be there long enough for the Afghan government to train and protect its people.
Ran, Marietta

I guess it's a brave decision by President Obama to continue to try to sort out this mess that he inherited. Let's hope it reduces the death and misery the Afghan people are being subjected to.
Stephane Gourguechon, San Franciso

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version