C.K.. I tried to access your source on the Taliban increase, twice, and was unsuccessful. Help me out if you can. Thanks.

C. K. : "The Taliban will increase whether we're there or not. That assumes the situation can'tbe changed. Was the Taliban in such great numbers from '03-'07? If not, what caused the reduction from '02? 9-11 aside, 30,000 plus terrorists were trained there.These based weretargeted by Clinton in 1998, but he didn't puill the trigger. They represented a threat then and their reestablishment would do the same. You assume, for some reason, that having a Afghan refuge wouldn't be a benefit to the Pakistani Taliban, I disagee with that. Also, saying the government of Pakistan is responsible for the security of theirnuclear matrial is all well and good and evenright. Helping them to do so however is in our interests. If the Taliban or Al Queda gets hold of the nuclear matrial who was or should be responsible is kind of a moot point at that juncture. As far as THE CURRENT NON TALIBAN government of Afghanistan engaging with Russia really points to the desire of representative governments to put negotiations before conflict. Did the prior Taliban governement engage with its former invader?

John states: My only contentions are if we withdraw from Afghanistan, the likelihood of the Taliban returning to power is considerable. Given their history,it's not unreasonable to assume that they would provide, as they have in the past, sanctuary for Al Queda training bases, which ultimately had a direct impact on the United States.

I would contend that yes- Taliban influence would increase. However it will increase whether we are there or not. 72% in 2008, to 80% in 2009: *despite* the 17,000 additional troops we've sent this year. [source on taliban increase: http://tinyurl.com/yfvbmyj]

Just food for thought- Why attack Afghanistan for basing AlQueda, when all the 9/11 planning took place in Germany and Spain; using US-based Saudis? I'm seeing a major disconnect on the relation of the two.
----------------------------------------------

Simultaneously, having Afghanistan as a base,they could conceivably provide refuge to Pakistani Taliban/Al Queda, just the opposite of ythe situation now, in the effort to acquire some of the nuclear material posessed my Pakistan.

The Paki Taliban is already established, and is not dependent upon their brothers in Afghanistan. The Gov't of Pakistan is responsible for securing their weapons/material, not us (regardless of it's impact upon us)
---------------------------------------------

John continues: As I mentioned from the very beginning, I can care less about Afghan politics or government as long as they provide troops in the field to support activities that are designed to achieve the 2 objectives, which I believe have a direct impact on our security.

Good on ya about the politics and gov't. Remember that Afghanistan is more-or-less a conglomeration of tribal people, rather than a united population. The only time they "unite" is under occupation from a foreign force.

What those Afghani forces do, or don't do, is contingent upon THEIR better interests (not ours). See- that whole Sovereign Nation thing... it goes both ways. We are expected to take care of OUR own better interests, and not expect others to do that for us. If that is indeed the case- then why haven't we officially declared war, via congress, on Afghanistan? If that isn't the case- then we're a foreign entity, unjustly intervening in the governance of a sovereign nation.

Either way- what makes for OUR better interests may not necessarily make for their better interests. We have NO business dictating their actions, regardless of how it impacts our "security".

----------------------------------------------

John finishes up with: Given the nature of the threat, from both an actual historical perspective and potential nuclear threat, all due caution shuld be maintained, because if either happens, I believe the security of the United States would be greatly challenged.

I submit the current relationship of Afghanistan with Russia. Historical perspective- Not a good one. Currently- 20 years after fighting ceased... they're in talks with each other, and trade occurs. It seems to me that a peacetime relationship with another country would be greatly more beneficial to both parties involved. Our grievances would be better tolerated over a diplomatic table, rather than at the barrel of a gun, no?

C.K. Bigoldi: I won't be presumptious enough to say I know more than the President. My only contentions are if we withdraw from Afghanistan, the likelihood of the Taliban returning to power is considerable. Given their history,it's not unreasonable to assume that they would provide, as they have in the past, sanctuary for Al Queda training bases, which ultimately had a direct impact on the United States. Simultaneously, having Afghanistan as a base,they could conceivably provide refuge to Pakistani Taliban/Al Queda, just the opposite of ythe situation now, in the effort to acquire some of the nuclear material posessed my Pakistan. I belive this too would be detrimental to the security of the United Staes. If, by the small chance I'm right, after the fact will do us no good at at, would it? As I mentioned from the very beginning, I can care less about Afghan politics or government as long as they provide troops in the field to support activities that are designed to achieve the 2 objectives, which I believe have a direct impact on our security. What particular stratgey helps us achieve those goals is what we should pursue. Given the nature of the threat, from both an actual historical perspective and potential nuclear threat, all due caution shuld be maintained, because if either happens, I believe the security of the United States would be greatly challenged.

Mr. Lorenz:

Please state exactly what our policy (i.e.- our purpose) is, concerning Afghanistan.

Mr. Allison: The question isn't political promises kept or not kept, but whether or not Afghan policy will enhance or detract from our security. That's the type of decisions a Commander-in-Chief is supposed to make regardless of the "domestic political climate" which appears to one of B.O.'s primary considerations, equal to, if not exceeding any other factors. At least those are words he used last August in an interview with Tery Moran of ABC News.

Hey Isis B I know Bin Laden hasn't been found yet because there hasn't been a media frenzy and loud gloating from Faux News. John, Bush and Obama have both made promises in their presidental campaigns about the wars that they didn't keep. That's what pols do to get elected. Thank God I don't have to make a decision about what to do in Afghanistan because no matter what anyone does there, there will be more bloodshed and confusion . Empires from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union have gone to Afghanistan and when they left they were bloodied and exhausted. I pray the US can do better but it remains to be seen and while Obama now owns this war and is his to win or lose let's not forget who got us there in the first place.

Oops Sorry Mr. Lawson I meant Mr. Allison...

I agree John...and Mr. Lawson do you have inside intel that you need to share? How exactly is it that you know that Bin Laden wasn't ever found? Hum amazing that someone in the Tri-Cities area, commenting on the Kingsport Times News, could have such intel. Wonder if the FBI knows that you know so much about what did and did not happen? You're awesome! PLEAZE! Has Osama killed another 3,000 ppl? Did that happen again? NOPE! So, I'm thinking W done alright!

Mr. Allison: OK let's give BO time to work on this.Given the nature of the situation, as you see it what should he do and why? Afterall CANDIDATE Obama had some very specific ideas when it came to Afghanistan and he mentioned them throughout the campaign, first in order to criticize Bush, next to show the voting public he wasn't weak on defending American interests/security. Well, it's his call. What else, other than domestic political concerns, one of his primary yardsticks, are there left to assess?

How soon some people forget. George W. Bush when he sent our military into Afghanistan in 2002 vowed that Bin Laden would be found and punished. He even famously said "you can run but you can't hide." However as the years passed this promise was quietly shoved under the rug and forgotten. Bin Laden whether he's alive now or not was never found in the two terms W was in the Whitehouse. Obama has been in office less than a year. I think since we gave W almost eight years to find Bin Laden and he failed, we should give Obama a little more time to work on this.

I agree Joe! CK are you a conspiracy theorist? OBL is long gone...6 feet under! Unless I meet the man, get a DNA sample myself, I will NEVER believe he is still alive!

"Was this only pretty words and something he knew the American people wanted to hear?" Welcome to Politics 101.

Just an idea to run up the flagpole...

OBL was in declining health in 2001, being on dialysis in the healthcare mecca of Afghanistan. Our state dept. noticed that his videos showed the worsening health until mid-December of that year... then silence. About six months later- OBL was at full flame, ranting and denouncing the West like it was no one's business. Odd thing is... it didn't "seem" or "look" like the genuine thing.

Fatter noses on the latter Osama. An impartial look just didn't pass the sniff test. Rings, which were prohibited by Wahhabi teaching, graced his fingers. No reputable sightings in ages. A lot of little inconsistencies.

Faked videos? A Weekend-At-Bernie's, writ internationally large, to prop up flagging support for a senseless war?

"Surely, not from Bush" you'd say. He's as dependable and honest as the corner Pharmacist. Riiiiggghhhttt.

Serious hat-tip: http://tinyurl.com/lhxg7q

I think this letter is incorrect to say the least. This thing is much bigger than Osama. It's an ideology. Killing one adherent of an ideology will not extinguish the ideology itself.