What is the Goal? What are the consequences if the powers that be decide to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan and put them in harm's way. It would be wrong to demand such a sacrifice from our soldiers in the absence of clear, achievable and worthwhile goals. Karl Eikenberry the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, recently sent two classified cables to officials in Wasington expressing what the newspaper described as "deep concerns" about sending more troops now. Should the President listen to the generals or should the generals and the president listen to the people. First off Karl Eikenberry was a four-star general until President Obama named him ambassador in Kabul. Eikenberry also commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006-07. I agree wholeheartedly that his pleas against sending in more troops should be heard. It's very possible that Eikenberry may have a reason for his concern that we are not aware of. Karzai by the way has named one of the most notorious drug kingpins as his top aide, what the hell is going on there? Sure he's gonna fight corruption!!! If you believe that I just invented a cure for cancer and will sell it to the pharmaceutical industry for 100 mllion dollars which is the amount Afghanistan stands to profit from transit fees on the planned oil pipe line and rail roads which will begin construction in 2010.                                                    It is wrong and even obscene for these decision makers who sit in their leather bound chairs behind massive desks in Washington snapping their fingers and sending our young men and women to a hopeless wasteland of eternal corruption and carnage. Eikenberry is all to familiar with the flagrant approach of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his reckles mismanagement of government which has caused more empowerment of the Taliban in the country. The corruption is so deep and ingrained into the fabric of that country that Karzai's opponent failed to get enough support for a decent chance as a nominee against Karzai. There are several scenarios that Obama is considering, one in which he would send approximately 30,000 troops, somehow convincing NATO allies to make up the difference, or send about 20,000 troops, and modify the McChrystal plan. I am not convinced that either options would create achievable goals and neither set forth goals that are clear.

Our forces have been at war for eight years with no end in sight, serving tours of duty of up to 15 months in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many units have been called to serve multiple tours. Fighting two big simultaneous wars with our armed forces stretched so thin has put enormous emotional, psychological and economic stress on military families. The suicide rate in the armed forces has climbed steadily, as has the incidence of stress disorders among veterans. Any new deployment would come at a heavy cost--a human cost--far beyond the billions of dollars required to traifn, equip, transport and maintain the units being sent. There are reports that Obama has refused to sign off on any plan until his advisers tell him how they propose to end the expanded war they advocate. But this sounds like just another way of saying: Tell me how we're going to fix the mistake we're about to make. As long as our goals in Afghanistan remain as elusive as they are, Obama shouldn't be sending troops. He should be be bringing them HOME!!