erryPresident O bama has been presented with four options regarding AfghanistaN. They all involve sending more troops – upwaards of 45,000/
Now suddently a fifth option has appeared. Send few or no troops. This option has been presented to the president by Karl Eikenberry, the American ambassador to AfghanistaN. Formerly Ambassador Eikenberry was the top American general in AfghanistaN. He has now warned the president against sending troops to Afghanistan. One of his reasons is the sorry state of the Karzai government – a feeble Americanpartner.
Should President Obama consider sending no troops?
Would you be happy if the president decided to sell no troops.?
This is a very disjointed country. Having said that, and in order to separate the chaff from the wheat, I propose emptying the country of its population and its invaders. Now we don’t have a problem, right? Waiting in the wings is a crowd of Afghans living in Pakistan. They are the second largest language group. Then we have the Al-Q and the Tali and the Hamas and the Iranians. This country is surrounded by 6 other nations who are looking for opportunities and have their eyes on Afghanistan. Warmongers hate a vacuum and with no one living in the big “A” they invade. Big mistake. The U.S. also makes a mistake and invades. It has several divisions sitting in South Korea. They rout the invaders. Now we have the U.S. in control. But in control of what? Well. no country can use it as a surrogate to launch nuclear missiles to the U.S. No lives are being lost, that’s good. But it can’t afford to stay there as border guards forever. Now what? Weeell!, lets divide the country as we would a pie and award the land to the 6 countries bordering Afghanistan. If they wish the 6 nations could allow the Afghans to return to the territory under its control. Dividing up a nation has been done many timea in the past. Yada-Yada-Yada