Monday, November 2, 2009

Weekly News GRASPS November 2, 2009

This week I want you all to investigate and consider what is happening right now in Afghanistan. Afghani whaaaaaat? That's right, Afghanistan. The U.S. sent troops to the country after September 11, 2001 to look for Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks here in New York and Washington. They have not found bin Laden yet....but they have encountered resistance and conflict with local tribes affiliated with the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist movement/government that was running Afghanistan prior to September 11. It is believed that the Taliban, who operate heavily on the border of Pakistan, may be harboring bin Laden, and are considered a threat to regional stability.

We have many troops in Afghanistan today, and American military members are dying in the conflict. President Obama is considering sending an additional 20,000 troops to the country--and the national debate is whether we should pull our troops out of Afghanistan all together, avoiding more American deaths...or send more troops and try to crush the opposition and increase stability in the country.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
Please read the following op-ed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/too-big-to-fail-why-all-t_b_341599.html

You assignment is to break down this writer's argument, answering the following questions:
1. What are the pros and cons of sending more troops to Afghanistan, according to the author?
2. What are President Obama's options?

You must then research one RECENT (last month) news article about Afghanistan from a credible source, and include reference to the news article in your response.

Good luck....this is a huge and important issue right now for the United States...so get involved and understand all sides of the argument!!
k.

46 comments:

  1. I think the only good way to save lifes is the president Obama to stoped sindidng more troops to Afghanistan. I think is not faeir for people who lives there in Afghanistan and get killed for not reason alot people is died especial young people. the good way to save this lifes is to stop sending troops to Afghanistan this why the president Obama have to stop the warm or do something to prevent the warm with them. becasue i think the country is not save like that to keep sending troops to Afghanistan. I believe the president should think in the future of United States becasue what is goint to happen later on when the president deside to stop the warm if they made alot destructions. I think this people from the warm they are not going confortable to stay like that and forgetting abotu what hapen in their country. They must want to pay back to United states and could be more hard. This the reason why the president obama should do something now he have to much time to do somenthing like prevent the warm from this people.I thing if he do that he could save more money and can mede the ecconomic stronger and save the country.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my opinion the only way to save peoples life is when President Obama stop sending more troops to afghanistan. because there are the majority of the army are dying there. for example in the article Obama visits Dover AFB to honor fallen soldiers.it says "In a separate crash, four more U.S. troops were killed when two helicopters collided over southern Afghanistan. On Tuesday, eight soldiers were killed when their personnel vehicles was struck by roadside bombs in the Afghanistan's Kandahar province." this means many us troops are dying and families are very sad. obama should realize what he has done to U.S. troops.i think obama has to stop the war before is too late because the afhanistan are taking advantage of U.S. troops. i am not agree that now obama decided to send more troops because the war is getting worse and worse because people is killing each day. another example it says" He has upped the U.S. commitment there to 68,000 troops and is considering sending a large addition next year". which means the majority people are consideren to go next year and it will get more worst because the afghanistan will be prepare for the fight and it will be more dangerous for the US troops.the reason that i say presedent obama should stop the war is because so he can have time to find another way to stop the fighting against the afghanistan. i think he should make peace against afghanistan in order able to save people's life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i think its best for Obama to not send anymore troops to Afganistan because as he send more military troops majority of them are dying in the conflict and thats not a good sight to seeAs things go from bad to worse.as it says in the article
    "The debate [within the administration] is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed."by that being said there dont need to be any more troops sent we should keep the amount of troops thats already over in Afganistan therefore we wqouldnt have too keep putting more troops in danger,because next year if there be a draft there would be alot more of teens being drafted and going to war while the war get worser, therefore idont agree with Obama send more U.S troops like it say in the article "The striking increase to almost 70,000 has, so far, led to a more intense but less successful war effort" and there's just no point of keep losing our troops.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In my opinion, one of the best way that should be to save the life of many people here in U.S. and Afganistan is the our president Obama stop the war and dont send more troops Iraq. Because this spending to much money, and also is one of the cause for the that the country now live a great depresion, the cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year.this is to much money that would be useing to make improve the ecomony and helping to obtain a better community out the war a country with more peace for all this family who have that live the worry of see thier families figth and that can died and any time.In addicion, The war have to finish if our president to made a good job, but he have to making more he have to stop the war and stop send solders to Afganistan to fight and focues more to make that U.S. can be a country like before that support more our community and a country more safe for people whose life here they need a feel of peaces and the safe of the goverment and the support of our president.

    ReplyDelete
  5. According to Tom the pros of sending more troops to afghanistan are that the U.S. is going to be secure of any attack from terrorists. the cons are that soldiers are dying. the U.S.is spending a lot of money in the war,According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, "the cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year." moreover this war is "an invitation to fuel the flames of an already roaring fire." The U.S. is only provoquing more Afhanistan and their war. The U.S. is gaining more enemies, a lot of countries are not supporting the U.S. in this war anymore. President Obama should bring the troops from Afhanistan to avoid more soldiers deaths.
    The president should stop spending money in wars and help the poor to overcome the economic crisis here in the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama’s main target in sending more troops to Afghanistan is to prevent further attacks to the United States and in a way to back up the afghan government and to protect the Afghan people which become the strongest pro. However the con of this issue is the decision of sending more American troops to war because it will cause massive numbers of deaths of both American soldiers and the Taliban people. According to Tom Engelhardt author of the article Too Big to Fail?: Why all the President’s Afghan Options Are Bad Ones. “ … Taliban attacks are up…. Deadly roadside bombs or IEDs are fast on the rise (a 350% jump since 2007)... U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly….” By sending more troops our president is only promoting and taking war to a point that would get out of the hands and a great war might break. In addition this article also states that the increase of troops has “led to a more intense but less successful war effort.” I agree strongly because from this war there have not been much gains but yet great losses. Although I think President Obama should stop sending more troops to war it was brought to my attention that the president “appears committed to adding at least 10,000 to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan in an effort to bolster the training of Afghan army and police officers ...” (Obama seeking options o forces, by Anne E. Kornblut and Greg Jaffe) so now I think is okay to send a few more troops but only to reinforce the Afghan army not go mad crazy firing guns. In conclusion I think Obama should come up with another strategy to protect the Afghan people without sending 40- 50,000 additional troops to war that will spread the blood of many American soldiers in the Taliban territory.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The author of "Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones" believes that the only good thing of the war in Afghanistan is to maintain peace and protect the U.S. Tom Engelhardt, the writer also dislikes the long years of battle because many troops die each day and there is a consideration of Soviet strategy. This leads to fallouts, attacks and bombing will occur. The war isn't cheap, more than 1 billion dollars a year is used to support 100,000 troops. “According to Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, it costs the Pentagon about $1 billion per year to station 1,000 U.S. troops in that country.” In result, U.S. taxpayers lose money because they fund supply to troops. I want the United States to disengage to fight because there is no positive result to the millions of dollars going to waste in the Afghan war.The president of the United States wants to increase troops in Afghanistan to 40,000. The “New York Time”, reports, “This year alone, the Pentagon is sending more than $500 million in arms, equipment and training assistance to Pakistan, to help train and equip the Pakistani military for counterinsurgency operations. Included in that package is nearly $13 million in electronic eavesdropping equipment…” This goes to show no process in the conflict its money gone down the drain thanks to the U.S. government.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1.Some of the pro to sending in more troops would be to possibly find this Osama bin Laden that the news has been constantly saying is the target we have chased but have yet to gain any type of custody on. Another pro would be the gaining of another piece of land which is believed to be the real taget along with Afghanistan's oil which would greatly benefit the U.S. And lastly a pro would be seen as America being feared that much more as a power.
    Unfortunately the cons to sending more troops would be, that you are most likely sending them to their deaths. Also that you would be tearing apart familiesand lowering America's home defense in cause something else happens right after this war.

    2.Obama's choices have changed since 6 months ago says the L.A. times. They wrote his choices were as followed "opt for a narrow, low-cost strategy of "counter-terrorism," focused on attacking Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies? Or should he embrace a broader, more expensive strategy of "counterinsurgency" Since the President didn't repond to this request from congress he is now proposed with another choice. And if this one is choosen by the Ptresident it could involve many more troops and even expand the war by a 6 year plane.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The president Obama likes to travel the different state to meet people. Some people was asking for the money because they had to do it the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “President Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan…” Karen De Young, a writer of The Washington Post explains in the article, “Afghan Conflict Will Be Reviewed” It’s evident that president Barack Obama is between the wall and the sword because as Karen De Young explains that there are pros and cons about this issue, “U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly” which is the con because there is people who is against that war simply because they think it doesn’t make sense and many innocent people and soldiers are dying. Karen De Young also adds, “Where impending disaster is just an invitation to fuel the flames of an already roaring fire.” Karen explains that instead of winning they’re just making it worse. According to the author the pro or support for that war is that the country is being protected from other attack. President Obama’s options are to bring the troops back and stop the fight there. Another one is the “Counterterrorism plan” which means that “upping the use of U.S. drone aircraft and Special Forces teams, while focusing less on the Taliban in the Afghan countryside and more on taking out al-Qaeda and possibly Taliban operatives in the Pakistani tribal border regions” as Karen explains in the article, “Afghan Conflict Will Be Reviewed”

    ReplyDelete
  11. Based on this op-ed by Engelhardt you can see that he presents the reader with pros and cons about whether or not to send more troops to war. According to Engelhardt's "Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones" the pro of sending more troops to Afghanistan is that we would increase our chances of possibly ending the war (which I personally doubt would happen) and the con would be that and abundant amount of American troops would be dieing. As well as many of their families and friends would be in a lugubrious state. I believe that sending more troops would not resolve the dilemma. The reason for that being is because even though we would have the upper hand advantage by having more troops, that would increase deaths on both sides of the war. I can't imagine how terrified others feel who have relatives who are at war. It would be devastating for them if they found out that their relative was either severely injured or killed. Obama is under a lot of pressure and if he makes the wrong choice he would be criticized by the media. Some people think we should send more troops so we could end the war but others oppose to that. I know that the US in a very tight spot and they have to take all options into consideration. One way they will try to stop the war is by getting aid from others. In a recent news article "U.S. Urges Karzai To Make Corruption Arrests" In the article it states that, "The United States wants Afghan President Hamid Karzai to arrest and prosecute corrupt government officials" This is a good idea because Karzai being the president must show his authority and be callous with the disobedient citizens of his country.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the article "Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones"
    the author Tom Engelhard pros in sending more troops to Afghanistan is are that if we stay till the end of the war and not pull out we will be seen as more powerful and the U.S. would have another piece of land were oil is produced. His cons are that many troops are dieing and Another con is that a lot of money is going to that war. The author stats “According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year. According to Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, it costs the Pentagon about $1 billion per year to station 1,000 U.S. troops in that country” This means everything will get even more expensive for us here in the U.S. President Obama’s options are focusing more in taking out al-Qaeda, training and make the Afghanistan army and police stronger so they can fight, or, train the Afghanistan army and police plus bring in more troops.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The principal purpose of the president Barack Obama to keep the troops and send more of those to Afghanistan is for the reason that USA resident still protected from Taliban crowds or terrorist, in addition to defend Afghanistan’s population from their aside armed forces. In the article “Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones” various con that Tom Engelhardt shows about Afghanistan war are that numerous USA soldiers die each day in the war “U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly” “three U.S. helicopters -- the only practical way to get around a mountainous country with a crude, heavily mined system of roads -- went down under questionable circumstances”
    Tom says too “increase the number of American boots on the ground to "protect" the Afghan people” so, president Obama maintain the troops just to protect Afghan residents? Well it doesn’t make sense involve defense forces in a conflict for anything. According to Tom Engelhardt “approximately 70,000 already slated to be in-country by the end of 2009, more than a doubling of the force in place when the Obama administration came into office. The striking increase to almost 70,000 has, so far, led to a more intense but less successful war effort.” The most recent years several soldiers die for the war and the families of those sense gloomy because they lose a family member in a war where they consider that don’t contain any cause to maintain it.
    As well the cost of the combat is too elevated for America because “the cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year” it mean that the Obama’s administration is paying the war with every single American’s money although this nation should be in recession. I don’t accept as true about the different reasons (safe Afghan people, protect USA for terrorist) that president Barack Obama articulate for maintain the troops in Afghanistan as the reason that USA be in recession moreover numerous American soldiers and Afghan people are failing for the war.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. What are the pros and cons of sending more troops to Afghanistan, according to the author?

    According to Tom Engelhardt here are the following Pros and Cons of sending troops to Afghanistan. Cons would be that we can one day find Osama Binladin and escape from his terrible terrosim. We can provide more safety and less worry to Americans and the American Governmnet about what Osama is capable of. We can avoid nuclear bombing in the United States. Cons can be that even if we do find Osama the US didnt stop to think that other can be just live Osama and try to destro America. What they need to see is that based on hatred America is the most hated place out of all, so it could happen again. Another Con can be that we can loose many troops and never find binladin. It has taken a year so far and still nothin and all we have gain os more and more deaths. America has to stop and think about what is best. But at the same time we may not be able to pull out, because we may already be in too deep. For example tom says, "By now, the urge to bail out Afghanistan, instead of bailing out of the place, has visibly become a compulsion, even for a foreign policy team that should know better, a team that is actually reading a book about how the Vietnam disaster happened" Its too late to pull out because the disaster has already been set, and if we pull out then they will try to go back on us. Also many Americans dont know Afgahnistan so its difficult for them to get around, they are busy studying what their next move will be.



    2. What are President Obama's options?

    President Obama has many options it just all depend what bette for the people. He can stay at wasr but the consequences of that will be more death of the troops, and they will never find binladin. Or he can take them o ut of war but then Binladin will try to get back at us. Either way there is consequences. In tom's view the Us itself has gone through to much to bail now. For example he says, "
    The United States lived through all the phases of escalation, withdrawal, and defeat in Vietnam without suffering great post-war losses of any sort. This time we may not be so lucky. The United States is itself no longer too big to fail -- and if we should do so, remind me" The us has gone through so many wars and has made it this little incident should not stop them from achieving what they went in for in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Meanwhile in my opinion is a wasting of time in trying make people believe in what seen wrong. Countless people had being dispute the war among the United State and Iraq, Afhganistan. what several people arwe disputing is that because the war there is not enoug in the country, and even more soldier are diying dying; more money is wasting.According to Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, it costs the Pentagon about $1 billion per year to station 1,000 U.S. troops in that country. It's fair to assume that this estimate doesn't include, among other things, long-term care for wounded soldiers or the cost of replacing destroyed or overused equipment.various people think that the money that is wasting in that war can be use to help school, poor people,keep people safty,etc. Any country can be wound by a big attack and be kill several citizens.One of the com for this war can be, take revenge against the main character responcible of the attack that happened in 10/11/2001,but a pro of this can be that Osama will never found, therefore this mean more American soldier will die and civilian people. In the article " Fearinf Another Quagmire in Afghanistan" by Helene Cooper said During the transition, military planners started talking about adding as many as 30,000 troops. There is no point to send people directly to the deat

    ReplyDelete
  16. In the article, the author only states the cons of keeping the troops. Basically, in afghanistan, the number of deaths in the US army is drastically increasing as well as the statistically wounded. Allies in Europe are acting as if they don't want to assist the US, and that this whole situation could soon spiral into a domino-like effect of economies falling. Obama's choice, in this matter, is obvious now. As stated in a recent article i found in the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-afghan272009oct27,0,7820767.story) Obama's main choice is to figure out how MANY troops he going to send. He knows times are drastic now, its only a matter now of making a proportional decision.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My opinion in reference to this article is the following: I believe that the Afghan was has no meaning I mean it had a meaning back then because of the terrorist attempts on 9/11. I believe that what those terrorist had done have no name and for that yes America should be fighting a war. But lets not also forget that once the troops were sent to Afghanistan during some time in there they were able to apprehend and capture Hussein. Hussein was then later executed, based on the Judge ruling. Years went by, and America founded itself still fighting a war which no longer had no meaning. The ideal of the Afghan was to capture the terrorist Osama Bin Laden, yet America failed to do so, because Bin Laden was no were to be found. When I read the "Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones"
    (Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/too-big-to-fail-why-all-t_b_341599.html&cp)
    I was able to notice that the author talks about how instead of trying to send more troops to fight a vague war, those troops should home."Meanwhile, the U.S. command in Afghanistan is considering a strategy that involves pulling back from the countryside and focusing on protecting more heavily populated areas" I agree what the author says about the troops being sent over to Afghan, I believe that our President Barack Obama should not sent no more troops to Afghanistan because it will just be waste of money, and on top of that the president may be going agaisnt his own will. Obama like 10 months ago stated that he was going to find a way to withdrew the troops from Afghanistan, and by sending more troops he will just break that promise. The Pros is that by sending more troops to Afghanistan will just ruin the economy even more, because then there would be more investment in arsenals than the country which happens to be in state of need right now. The cons, are that by sending more troops to Afghanistan will Strenghten the troops that are already there, and may help cease the war within that community. This is my view towards the Afghan war.

    ReplyDelete
  18. i believed that Presidant Obama should bring the troops back to america because "The striking increase to almost 70,000 has, so far, led to a more intense but less successful war effort." in this opinon the arthour is try to show that the american government is just spending money and let the troops to be kill by afgan for no reason. also the pressure is increasing every single day because its so hard for the american soliders to figure the climate and place. additionally, The Taliban is not only attaking the americans they are even attak the UN which is the war is getting worse every single day for american solider and for those innocet people. according to "Taliban turns screws on UN in Afghanistan" The Taliban are kiling so many people and soliders for instance in the article it says " The UN decision to temporarily withdraw 600 foreign staff -- more than 50 percent of the current total -- comes in response to a Taliban attack on a hostel nine days ago in which five UN employees and two Afghans were killed." which it shows that if the world troops cant stop whats the point of american sending another 20,000 troops to there again or the presidant want them to be killed. in my opinon the presidant should bring all the troops back to america and just try to protect their country as much as they can. presidant Obama option is that bring all the troops back to american or focused on the war only and spend as much as money and send a lot of troops to afgan till this things end.

    ReplyDelete
  19. the cons for sending more troops to Afghanistan is that a lot more soldiers will died. and also innocent people will died in Afghanistan, our soldiers and other pleople that dont have anything to do with what bin Laden did are ding. it is true what Bin Laden did is Unforgiving but the question is, should more people have to be ding for that? i think not and here is the reason why i think that, we lost so many people in Bin Laden's attack and we are still losing more lifes and what do the Uneted state gains? we dont even know if Bin Laden is still alive, and more troops are being send to Afghanistan, that means more peole will die.

    the pro for sending more troops to Afghanistan is that the chance of finding Bin Laden will increase. if Bin Laden is found the world and specialy our nation will finaly be safe from that mounster Bin Laden. once that beast is not around hunting, the people will be in less panic of being attacked

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think that Presidant Obama should bring back all the troop becasue their are to many of them getting killed and the family of those falling soldiers for other people coming to there house then find out that their family member is died

    ReplyDelete
  21. The author of "Too Big to Fail?” Why all the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones" believes that the only reason why Obama hasn’t pull out the troops from Iraq is because he is trying to prevent another attack to the US and to protect Afghanistan people. Tom Engelhardt writes that there are so many innocent people dying every minute. The United States loses so much money invested in this war it’s about 1 million. Who’s paying for this? Tax payers of course The New York Times reports that “U.S. taxpayers lose money because they fund supply to troops. I want the United States to disengage to fight because there is no positive result to the millions of dollars going to waste in the Afghan war” “The United States has provided Pakistan with about $12 billion in military assistance and payments since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks” they provide this amount of money to support and cover their cost of fielding. The pros are that the Afghanistan people would be at peace if they win the war. But so many soldiers are dying in this endless war. The President’s options are to take off the troops from Iraq or train Afghan troops more which both of these options would have to invest more money and they will never see results.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Our country is facing a crisis with another country. The idea of sending additional troops to Afghanistan is not entirely beneficial towards a lot of tasks at hand. Its clear that the primary goal of the American troops is to seek justice by finding Osama bin Laden. Yet there is a lot of soldiers and as well as innocent people whom reside of Afghanistan that die during that process. The president is the one who can really come upon with a decision regarding the circumstances of the american troops in Afghanistan. He can stand at either keeping the amount of troops that are already there, sending more troops or just bringing them all back home. To send more troops there will be more fighting this war but just as well there will be more of the same. As its reported daily there are troops that are being killed. This is no dount a con for sending more troops to Afghanistan just as well theres is also the possibility of not finding Osama bin Laden. The decision stays upon our president to decide which risk he's willing to take that would ultimately end the war and accomplish the mission at stake.

    ReplyDelete
  23. President Obama is plaining on sending more troops to afghanistan. He is doing this because he feels that by doing so it will stop the attacks on the US. In an article writen in the Washington Post by Karen e Young. "With conditions on the ground worsening by nearly every yardstick last year -- including record levels of extremist attacks and U.S. casualties, and the expansion of the conflict across Pakistan and into India -- Obama's campaign pledge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan with more troops, money and diplomacy has encountered the daunting reality of a job that has barely begun". He wants to finish what was started 7 years ago. I can see his side that maybe in the long run this will help. But on the other hand there are so many people dying. And it is like he doesn't even care. It is sort of like okay if some troops die then we have much more we can send in there place.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1. The con according to the Author, is the high death rate of soldiers that "US deaths are at a recoed high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly." And the other con might be the "domino theory", which means if Afghanistan fell, many other countries would also fell. The pro might be US would have a higher odds to win the war.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As this article shows tells us, Obama have several choices to decide on what to do next to end the war against terrorisim. The author gives us the some of his options on his next step and Obama have a big decision to make in the next few days. he would either send more troops to Afganistan or bring back the ones that are already there. On the other hand he can have other opotions like to keep the current soliders over there and train the Afganistan's toops to be better. But this is really our fight and as the commander of the US army notified, on the Washington Post, he said, "Current plans call for the United States to double the size of the Afghan army and police forces to about 400,000 in the hope that they can take over security responsibilities." Personally, I agree with commander and i will support on Obama sending in more troops to Afgan becuase this is our fight, even though its not in our country, the coinciquneces of our negligence could bring terror to our country if we bring back our troops and just have security on our own country. We need to be able to go to the source and fight it out. Additionally, as Martin Luther King said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The innocent people in Afganistan are being killed and tortured and so on. We can't just sit here and see people getting killed. This brings up the Hitlers genocide. No one made a move while he killed millions of people. I forgot where i heard this before but one who stand and see a crime being done should feel more gulit than the one who is commiting hte crime.Basically, what i am trying to say is that we can't let another genocide or holocoast happen again. So its better to fight it now. And we all know that if we leave that country now, we are the first target of the terrorists. They will come and attack us. And the other thing i would like to point out is, if one is to be a solider he is fighting for the freedom of hsi country, his family his freinds, his people, overall he is fighting for the safety of innocent people. So i think Obama should send some more troops even though he is sacrifying lives, what must be done must be done. This is not a game, it's not an easy dicision. But when we just think of life in general there's a saying for everything successsfull thing that happen in life, no pain no gain.

    ReplyDelete
  26. on this topic about the war in the middle east. i believe that we should not send more troops to the war because there all dying. but on the our hand we should still stai and send more troops because. we should find osma binlade and stop the terrios to stop the vilonce. i believe taht omaba is doing everything possiable to not send the troops there but he really has no choice but to send them. after thinking y believe that the troops should be send over to the middle east for the war because yt ys for the better of the counrty.

    ReplyDelete
  27. i think the persident Obemam must bring the troops "homw". because have many people is died, use a lot money to war, and the U.S Govt want sending more troops to Afghanistan, i think it is wrong, all troops don't want have war, they don't want see friend and fmaily is died, although the US troops only want found to Osama bin Laden,but a long year, troops can't found to him, and no vidence will prove him in the Afghanistan, i think troops shoud come back American, the us Govt should not squander to time, money and power for afghanistan war.
    if the US Govt sending more troops to Afghamistm, pros is the troops has increased and military affair is strong. the cons is lose a lot money, time and power, could be have more people is died, i hold all troops come back home.
    i think persidant Obama should be end this War, have many people lose home and family, have many kids lose parent, becasue is war, kids become an orphan, i think the Obama option is end war and all troops come back "home" and to have a family reunion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There are many conflicts that come with the war in Afghanistan more than the war itself. It’s a very controversial issue that all Americans are talking about that has no longer become a U.S issue but world wide. This is a issue that is discuss in the opinion editorial by Tom Engelhard where intended audience are Americans and other war concern, his purpose was to inform about the upcoming decision that president Obama has to make about bringing our troops back home or sending more and reinforcing the fight. Also what does each decision come with if it’s made how it will affect us and the world itself? This are some current problems, in the last week, Nuristan, a province on the Pakistani border, essentially fell to the Taliban after the U.S. withdrew its forces from four key bases. Tom also talks about how us force in this countries have weaken and that their way of transportation has been unknowingly destroy making in almost impossible to travel or get to places, “mountainous country with a crude, heavily mined system of roads.”
    He also comments on how the Taliban’s are now constantly active with their attacks also that “U.S deaths are a record high.” Many people question if the right decision would be to withdraw all the troops and leave the Middle East and their struggles to them, but were would that leave us vulnerable to attacks with out knowing who or what’s coming our way. Or just stayed in war and keep fighting and chasing a ghost and have numbers of American’s die each day. The editor also speaks on how he thinks that the war it’s like a game of domino’s, after the us falls all the countries will be falling.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In every war there are gains and loses that each side contains. The author claims that the American way of thinking that if they use the “domino theory” then it would be better for other countries because once the “enemy” countries fall then it would make the world better. And since the domino effect would be on place then the America believes that once the Taliban falls then other terrorists attacks will fall after it. The author believes that when times get tough and people are unable to handle the problem then they want to leave. “ By now, the urge to bail out Afghanistan, instead of bailing out of the place, has visibly become a compulsion” with US forces beginning to feel startled by the ferocity of the attacks that are happening than coming up with a more effective plan. An person in the article, Matthew P. Hoh, says that “To put [it] simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures or resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war... The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people.” When he says this I believe that Matthew wants the continued to support the war and hope that it will end soon. Another thing in the article would be that in the New York Times says that "[T]he debate [within the administration] is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed." Although President Obama is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan he doesn’t feel right to personally send more people to fight in the war in Afghanistan. In the article “U.S. official resigns over Afghan war” in the Washington Post the U. S. a solider by the name of Matthew Hoh, resigned from the war because he felt that he had lost site of the purpose for the U.S. to be in Afghanistan. He also says that
    "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.” He believes that the U.S. is not making progress in a war that, in his opinion, that has no end in site.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I belive that the author had more cons about sending mora troops to Afghanistan because he gives many reasons for that. For instance, he states, "...it will involve more, not less. It will up the ante, not cut our losses." Meaning that he knows for a fact that there is no way that Obama is going to get less troops to go to Afghanistan. This is becasue many think that the problem isn't "whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed." So one automatically knows that troops will be sent and a great amount of them. A pro that i found was that he found that, " the Taliban is largely in control." Referring to an article that i researched I believe that the US should stop sending troops to Afghanistan because that are many deaths from the troops that were sent over there. It clearly stated, " U.S deaths in Afghanistan has surged to a record high this month and are likely to remain elevated..." Tis is the main reason why there have been many deaths in Afghanistan becasue so many troops from US are being sent over there and are killed. Not only do they die but their families are left with much sorrow becasue of the death that has occured. If troops weren't sent so much over there, there would probably be many troops still alive that would be trying to better Afghanistan.
    President Obama's options I think would be for him not to send more troops because they're just going to die. But if he does, he should just send a few, but enough that will get the job done on time but without having so much people killed. Because what's the point of sending troops if there will be no solution acheived?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Some of the pros about sending more troops to Afghanistan according to the author are that we will continue to look for the Taliban which continue to grow stronger everyday. According to the author, “In the last week, Nuristan, a province on the Pakistani border essentially fell to the Taliban after the U.S withdrew its forces from four key bases.” This is an example of what the results might be if we pull out all of our troops imagine how much the bigger the impact would be. Some of the cons are that more and more troops are dying everyday and nothing is really being done. “U.S deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly.” President Obama’s options are 1 out of 4 options but every option he is considering has the word “more” attached to it. One option he has is to bulk up the training of the Afghan Army. Another option is to leave troop numbers in Afghanistan roughly the same. He could also use John Kerry’s plan of “counterinsurgency lite”. According to Tom Engelhardt, “It’s quite possible, of course, that the president will choose a “hybrid strategy” mixing and matching from the list,” is what he thinks Obama will do. Whatever decision he makes he needs to hurry up and stop “dithering”. “There are costs associated with delay, just as there are costs in making the wrong decision,” says Mark Thompson from Time Magazine

    ReplyDelete
  32. After reading the article "Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones" I believe that President Obama pros on sending more troops to Afghanistan is to look for Osama Bin Laden because he want to make him pay for what he did on September 11, 2001. I'm agree with him that Osama pay for what he did, but i'm disagree with President Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan because its the cons because a lot of innocent people and soldiers are dying everyday. In my opinion sending more troops to the war is a waste of time and money as it can be seen in the article "Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan" It say "200,000 forces versus 600,000 in Iraq are so low that a extra 30,000 isn't going to get you find who you want and stop the war". This quote reveals that the best things that President Obama can do is to take all troops out there because if he continue with the plan of sending more he wouldn't get any result then just more soldiers dead as it have been for almost 6-7 years in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  33. in my personal opinion, United States of America is a powerful country and sould send more troops to Afghanistan. The U.S.A should not fear any country that is a menace for the world and us. Barack Obama must send more troops and capture Osama bin laden because he killed a lot of Americans in sep. 11, 20009. There must be justice about that tragedy commited by bin laden. USA got the money, weapons, souldiers and the technology to challenge any country that wants to kill us.Also, if we control this country we would increase stability like the article of this paper says. The USA has the risk to be attack once again by the terrorist. The outhor of this article states "It is believed that the Taliban, who operate heavily on the border of Pakistan, may be harboring bin Laden, and are considered a threat to regional stability." i think the author knows for a fact the sending more troops can be a solution to capture Bin laden and get the best resources and savety for the Americans. Mr. president Obama if you were planning to quit the war you were planning to kill the Americans. Mr. Obama if you were planning to fortify the army, war,and souldiers you are thinking and acting smart.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ok this is what the articel is about: the good thing about sending more troops to afganistan is that they can keep the talibans from taking over. The bad thing is that american is sacrifising inocent lives. Obama is thinking of sending a moderate amount of troops. Kristof wrote in a current article, "Dispatching more troops to Afghanistan would be a monumental bet and probably a bad one, most likely a waste of lives and resources that might simply empower the Taliban." this athor uses the same anology. They both compare the war to gambeling.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well According to Author Tom Engelhard the pros of sending more troops to Afghanistan are that the U.S. is going to be more safe and secure of from any terrorists attack. the cons are that many young soldiers are dying. a article in the new york times says "United States is falling far short of his goals" saying Obama goals aren't be being meet will i think his option are to try and pull the troops back many of lives have been token in this war and family's hurt by it the is costing us more and we could be using the money to fix the economy and focus on getting back on track.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The United States lived through all the phases of escalation, withdrawal, and defeat...", if we can live through all of these actions what is so hard about the decision of whether or not troops should come home. I mean if they come home how much worse would things get, because I know they would. If Obama says that he is going to send some more troops over there what how far will that get us then? Even if according to the author we feel safe, why should be that type of country worried about our safety and over hundreds getting killed on each end everyday. Again as said many times our economy may get worse, but deputes will be settled. That's a big thing that is immportant the war itself not including the "new troops" is costing us alomost a million a day. Logically we have to make the right decisions as a coutry and fight together and not let the men of other families fight for us.

    ReplyDelete
  37. In my personal opinion i think Obama is stuck in between two apposing sides. (pros)to either send more troops to afganistan and prevent the talibans from gaining power. (Cons)his second option would be to bring back the troops that are over there n be reunited with their loved ones. however if he does so, this gives the talibans more time to strenghten and fight back. Whatever Obamas decision is, it turns out that either way he's going to receive a lot of criticism. there are many factors that Obama has to think about because if he sends more troops to Afganistan than their is going to be a bloodshed and innocent lives are going to be taken away because of a never ending war. However if he pulls the troops off Afganistan, than it's giving the Talibans a chance to fight back.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think that president Obama should stop sending additional troops to Afghanistan because I do not believe that sending more troops will help the cause we are fighting for. President Obama should make decisions with the soldier’s and soldier’s family best interest at heart. He needs to think that he would put our soldiers at risk. Also instead of sending troops and millions money for war, he should spend it for our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The article “Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President’s Afghan Options are Bad Ones,” by writer Tom Engelhardt shows pros and cons of sending more troops to Afghanistan. The author seems to have more cons toward this issue that many people are against. The article states, “our leaders evidently never saw a war to which the word ’more’ didn’t apply. Hence the Afghan War, where impending disaster is just an in vitiation to fuel the flames of an already roaring fire.” I understand the reason we began the war was to find Osama Bin Laden because of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but he was never and has not yet been found. I truly doubt he is going to be found in that country. So I believe there is no purpose of the war, but only to keep killing people. This war has no meaning and its costing a lot of money that the U.S. doesn’t have! So the U.S. is basically fighting fire with fire which can only cause a BIGGER fire. A con to sending troops to the war is that we are sending most of these soldiers to their death and therefore also taking their families down with them. A pro is that it can provide safety to the Americans from terrorist attacks. BUT this can turn on us because the Taliban who “is largely in control” can get so much frustrated and come and attack us in our country. Obama has options, but they may not be the best. He can stay at war which as I said before will bring deaths of soldiers. “The United States lived through all the phases of escalation, withdrawal, and defeat in Vietnam without suffering great post-war losses of any sort. This time we may not be so lucky. The United States is itself no longer too big to fail -- and if we should do so, remind me: Who exactly would bail us out?" Engelhardt feels that we most likely aren’t getting out of this conflict to easily. I agree with him; well any decision the country takes there will always be consequences and we will have to face them.

    The Afghanistan government has to take action against corruption because if it doesn’t the British will no longer provide more troops. “European allies are ever less willing to send more troops.” A recent article I read, ”Brown: UK staying in Afghanistan, but wants reform,” shows that there were deaths of seven British soldiers “including five who were shot by an Afghan police officer they were training.”

    All in all, sending more troops to the war isn’t going to solve the problem anytime soon, we may look at this war continuing for many more years. I would hope the war would end. That the countries involved find a resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well I believe that the pro of the war in Afghanistan is that the government have more soldier to protect the innocent people. also a lot people are dying during the war.one evidence from the text By Tom letter to the editor "An option to leave troops numbers in Afghanistan roughly at their present level and focus not on counterinsurgency, but on what's being called "counterterrorism-plus." This, in practical terms, means upping the use of U.S." this show that the President has part of con by sending troops to be kill. they could help the country by adding more school not sending more troops according to the author, in other points the OP. show another example from the OP-ED,"More School,Not Troops" by Nicholas D, Kristof. one example that the author show is when he says"we have already increased our troop presence by 40,000 troops since the beginning of last year, yet the result has not been the promised stability but only more casualties and a strengthened insurgency. If the last surge of 40,000 troops didn’t help, why will the next one be so different?" this show that all those droops were sent but , it didn't make any difference, so the options of the President are that , he should build more school to help the people in Afghanistan . because by trying to fin Osama Bin Laden , its going to be hard, and also that is a wasted of death people killed in the war.so that was the way the author demonstrated the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. In the article;"Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones", the pro is the amount of troops that President Barack Obama is sending to war in Afghanistan and the cons is the amount of troops that are dying including innocent people."U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly;" this quote means that the number of troops that were send over there and the people already over there are the people who are dying. In my personal opinion, I believe that by fighting and having war is not going to resolve anything. I also think that our president should calm down a little because the troops are also human beings and they are just like each one of us that are people who also have a beautiful family that cares for them, and to receive a horrifying news that your son has just been kill or wounded would leave a deep mark on the parents towards the president of the U.S.A. because he was the one who made the decision of sending their relative to war! Going to war is not a joke! It's all about wanting to have peace and sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you don't, and when when you don't achieve what you are fighting for and you die, you just turn to one of the many people who died each time for going to war, wanting to accomplish a task from your president. So I believe that President Barack Obama should reconsider his decision of sending a moderate amount of troops to Afghanistan or anywhere else. So basically all of this is an enormous waist of lives who could have been more active and useful in other ways. I think the President's option is to stop sending more and more troops to war because if they are not ready and prepared, they are most likely going to lose the war and at the end, there are going to be more deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "A good gambler cuts his losses.",from the article "Too Big To Fail", This quote really grabs my attention because this is how I see the United States is working up to this point and President Obama has no other choice but reduced troops in Afghanistan. not only to save lives but to save America and get America back where it was. increasing troops will just be another bad news for us and plus theres is no better place for soldiers to be but at home. However, this may take a while things can still change and Obama has that power to reshape American and only takes a couple words to say we are done with war.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The pros of sending the troops to afghanistan is that they are helping the nation to be a better place and the more people they send the more peace we can get. the cons of sending them is that they are so many troops dying for no reason just because people think they are doing something good.

    My opinion is that president Obama should realize that he is wasting money on sending people to places where they shouldnt be sent to. The U.S. needs all the money it can have since there are people who are loosing jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  44. In my personal opinion i think Obama is stuck in between two apposing sides. (pros)to either send more troops to afganistan and prevent the talibans from gaining power. (Cons)his second option would be to bring back the troops that are over there n be reunited with their loved ones. However there are many factors that Obama has to think about because if he sends more troops to Afganistan than their is going to be a bloodshed and innocent lives are going to be taken away because of a never ending war. However if he pulls the troops off Afganistan, than it's giving the Talibans a chance to fight back.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. President Obama is plaining on sending more troops to afghanistan. The pros of sending the troops to afghanistan is because the troops that was already over there where asking for more troops. the cons of sending them is that they are so many troops dying for no reason.
    He is doing this because in the first place the United State don't belone there. according to http://www.cbsnews.com "Afghanistan Troop Increase Unpopular Twenty-nine percent of those surveyed say troop levels should be increased, while thirty-two percent say they should be decreased. Another 27 percent say troop levels should be kept at the level they are now" now the United State is still not really sure abt whether they should semd the troops ort not.

    ReplyDelete