Reader comments
BYU grad says surge should work in Afghanistan

wow, if my company had a billion dollar contract I would say the same thing.

Once yah got the cash, guy, you are now dancing to the tune of the master.

Good luck to you when you try to sleep at night.

The statement "The surge ordered by President Barack Obama" is incorrect: The "Afghan Surge" has been in the works for over a year now, and is the brainchild of the Bush Administration.

Which is why President Obama elected to keep Bill Gates on as Defense Secretary; he wanted to ensure "continuity of operations" during the critical transition.

The only modification the President has made to the Bush plan is to reduce the amount of troops sent to Afghanistan, in spite of the recommendations of his commanders.

Our government has no business establishing a permanent police force in foreign countries. If it does not protect us from crime or foreign invasion, the government has no business being involved.

You do remember that little incident on September 11, 2001? You know, that terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers?

In case you have forgotten that attack was carried out by Muslim terrorists who organized and trained for the plan in Afghanistan, with the tacit support of the ruling Taliban party.

After the Soviets were kicked out of Afghanistan and the Cold War ended we just ignored the country and let it fester until the conditions were ripe for a group of anti-American fanatics to take over, which in turn made it easier for Al-Qaeda to hatch terrorist plots against us.

A stable, pro-Western democracy in Afghanistan is in our long-term interest and is a cause worth fighting for.

I'm not an Obama supporter, BTW, and I think he is doing this more out of political obligation than any sense that this is in our best interests, but the Afghan Surge is the right thing to do and the President is correct in sending more troops.

I hope the president has a note taped to his shaving mirror that reads "Afghanistan has been invaded dozens of times, but successfully occupied NEVER." Sure, a pro-Western democracy would be great. That doesn't mean it will actually happen without the Afghans wanting it, and there's little evidence of that.

It's been my experience that when people say that a war on behalf of "democracy" in a country they haven't seen six thousand miles away is "worth fighting for", they fully expect that the fighting will be done by someone else, invariably someone much younger. And they don't want to pay extra taxes for it either. No sir.