PRIORITY SHOULD be where ? AFGHANISTAN (REAL SOURCE of terror conflict) or Iraq?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_6
QUOTE "WASHINGTON - The U.S. military's top officer acknowledged on Tuesday that for all the importance of preventing Afghanistan from again harboring al-Qaida terrorists, Washington's first priority is Iraq.
"In Afghanistan, we do what we can," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "In Iraq, we do what we must."....His statement, delivered with emphasis in a prepared opening statement to the House Armed Services Committee, prompted some Democrats to say it showed what they have argued for years: that the Bush administration has become so bogged down in Iraq that it cannot make more effort in Afghanistan. I find it troubling that our ongoing commitment in Iraq prevents us from dedicating resources in Afghanistan beyond what is necessary to prevent setbacks, as opposed to what is required to realize success," Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the committee, said after the hearing."...??

Re Pip
I wonder WHERE YOUR homeland is AFGHANISTAN or Iraq - the only 2 Countries mentioned in my question?

Perhaps you didn't have time to READ the article in the link I provided...

Re Pip
Touche' I stand corrected re Grammar today !
It's encouraging though you actually KNEW exactly WHAT I meant.. but, you are correct, I should have said WHAT I MEAN, NOT WHAT I MEANT ;-)

Answer 1

The problem with Afghanistan is the sheer lack of enough military personnel to take and hold anything.

My lad was at Musa Qala this week - you know - the place taken last year and retaken this week with loss of life on both sides. The question has to be asked as to why we need to go in twice. Logic would dictate that you take and hold and provide the man power to do so.

The finger of accusation for this lack of resources can be pointed fairly at both the UK Government for decimating our armed forces over the last ten years and the US administration for removing the larger part of their forces from Afghanistan.

My lad does not mind the danger or the hardship. What p!sses him, and the rest of his unit, off is having to risk their lives to retake ground they've already risked their lives for previously - how many fecking times have they got to risk it over the same piece of worthless ground!!

Six years after NATO went in the only signs of "success" are more extremists pouring over the border from Pakistan, a higher poppy yield and secret negotiations with taliban groups.

Answer 2

You remember wrong. Not one Soldierr, truck or rifle were transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq. Since 2001, our total troop committment to Afghanstan has only increased, never decreased. You and Ike Skelton are putting words in the Admiral's mouth. Perhaps he means as you have interpreted, but more likely he's referring to the political situation in Afghanistan, where we are more constrained with a large NATO presence, under NATO command, and a much more developed native government than exists in Iraq as yet.

Answer 3

what ever ,, whatever any country that questions the s.u becomes a terrorist state or an undemocratic stop the b.s will u
Afghanistan never attracted n.y.c Saddam was the u.S's 2ND allay after Israel till his work was done with Iran at the end of 1989 few months later the u.s wants the weapons back so they had something planned all ready for him they trapped him they made him attack Kuwait the troops should get back home safe the Iraqis r fighting 4 their freedom they want the country back so what the f r u doing in Iraq if they want us out we don't want another 911 and that may just do it

Answer 4

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the GLOBAL WAR on TERROR. There are state sponsors, but for the most part, they are spread across the globe.

For example, if intelligence was wrong about WMD in Iraq, then couldn't the intelligence be wrong about Iran? And if Iran had a nuclear weapons program in 2004 that they apparently stopped, then why were they LYING about it in 2004?

Liberals need to get their heads out of the sand in regards to the Muslim Fanantics that want to first and foremost stop the liberals own hedonistic lifestyle.

Answer 5

Priority should be in the HOMELAND! If we have REAL security and information networks here and make REAL improvements instead of flashy, non-effectual ones to impress the public then we don't have to worry about being attacked and gallivanting all over the world.


Edit: Actually your question states: Priority should be where?

I answered your question. Afghanistan or Iraq are just your opinions.

Answer 6

we should have conducted an actual "war on global terror"... that means getting cooperation from other countries and taking out terrorist cells wherever they may be. Attacking and invading Iraq has prevented us from doing this and has actually hurt our efforts in fighting a global war on terror.

Answer 7

I've know that Bushs priorities were screwed up when he invaded Iraq with twice as many troops then he used to invade Afganistan!

Answer 8

Iraq did NOT sponsor any terror against the US or its interests..

If you want to combat terror, try Saudi Arabia, isn't that the funding source?

Answer 9

Priority should be here at home. We have enough of our own problems.

Answer 10

Iraq. That is where lots of Al Qaeda been and hope to be