(Thumbnail Image: current.com)
“We’ve got to quell the violence. We’ve got to slow down the Taliban. That means prevailing militarily and obviously, that’s where the additional resources and troops come in. That’s what General McChrystal has recommended and I think the president has got to follow his commanders on the ground.” (ABC News)
That was Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, telling ABC News that U.S. President Barack Obama must approve Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for an additional 40,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
President Obama has taken more than three weeks to decide whether to grant the commander's request. As the war in Afghanistan enters its eighth year, some in the media are asking, when will he decide? And what is the right decision?
We look at perspectives from Fox News, The New York Times, Russia Today, The Huffington Post, MSNBC on the president’s tough decision.
At Fox News, Bill O’Reilly comes down on the president for dragging his feet.
“Are you telling me that our enemies in the world feel that Barack Obama’s hesitation going on three weeks now to send more troops into Afghanistan is a strength play? You think Iran sees Obama as a strong guy?”
In a recent opinion piece, The New York Times warns choosing to stay in Afghanistan could hurt other more pressing military efforts. The Times says, while Obama once called the war in Afghanistan a “war of necessity," it is now a war of choice.
"There needs to be a limit to what the United States does in Afghanistan and how long it is prepared to do it, lest we find ourselves unable to contend with other wars, of choice or of necessity, if and when they arise.”
MSNBC's David Ratigan agrees, questioning why the U.S. is focusing on Afghanistan when Pakistan seems to pose a greater threat.
“Are we indulging ourselves in the Afghanistan conversation because it’s less scary to us, because to indulge the Pakistan conversation means you have to acknowledge that you have a nuclear power that is harboring terrorists, training them as we speak?”
At Esquire, Thomas Barnett says simply shifting attention to Pakistan would just help terrorists proliferate in the region. He criticizes Vice President Joe Biden for advising Obama to “stragetically disengage” with Afghanistan, saying that Biden’s reasoning is flawed.
“Trouble is, Biden's logic ignores our past successes in Iraq, the current state of globalization, the future of Afghanistan, and, perhaps reinforcing all three, the haunting presence of Al Qaeda. If Obama submits to Biden, as I suspect he will, is there any reason to think America won't simply preside over the rebirth of Al Qaeda?”
President Obama isn’t the only leader having to decide what’s next in Afghanistan. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged to send 500 more troops to Afghanistan, receiving some negative reactions from the British media. Russia Today has the view Afghanistan needs to start solving its own problems.
“We’re mired in a conflict now, which has a long, long problematic history, which really doesn't involve us. These people should be organizing on their own terms, setting up their own government.”
Huffington Post writer Sophie Nelson has a different view. She says the U.S. president must follow Gen. McChrystal’s guidance for the safety of American troops.
“How much tolerance can this new President, who is embattled on so many fronts (the economy, healthcare, energy, national security) have for American soldiers coming home in body bags because he refused to give the commanding General on the ground what he requested?”
As President Obama is in his third week of deliberation, do you think he should take Vice President Joe Biden’s advice or follow the suggestions of Gen. McChrystal?
Copy the code and paste it to your blog or website:
