Why was he (Obama, the anointed one) against the surge in IRAQ but is for a surge in Afghanistan?

Question

Why was he (Obama, the anointed one) against the surge in IRAQ but is for a surge in Afghanistan?

Answer 1

Because he has been listening to the military people who have been saying the same thing.  The two places are totally different. Afghanistan is a winnable military conflict against an external enemy, coming from Pakistan.

Iraq is an internal political conflict, and the original plan was simply to dismantle the Iraqi military threat.  None of the allies intended remaining there this long, and exit was always a prime objective.

Answer 2

LOL because he's a coward has no experience in the military let alone what it takes to fight a war or defend one and frankly because it was what was popular especially for reelection & furthering his ambitions. Mistakes were made no matter what side you were are on or currently believe but the fact is you can't just tuck & run. Time after time it's shown that that mentality just encourages more attacks. Bin laudin himselve refers to Somalia & the other 13 attacks during Clintons times and the Clinton responses as helping him see that we could be Beaten. Clinton pulled out like the coward he was & military & defense hater he is, and then afraid of US casualties he only fired a couple cruise missiles yet thousands most of them americans died during his 8 years in office. he didn't do a thing after the USS cole he fired 3 cruise missiles to revenges thousands & 14 attacks. I hate seeing good americans hurt let alone killed but I hate the idea of seeing those who have already done so to do so in vain because a president tucks & runs because he's scared or wants to be reelected especially when that helps make the changes better that someone I know will get hurt or killed next time not to mention a next time that much more likely. We had at least 14 attacks in Clintons 8 years 1 just three months before the end & he did nothing, Bush had one 6 months into it the worse one ever & he went hard after the attackers & their supporters & we havent been attacked since especially on US soil. We had no idea where they were now at least their contained...to a point

Answer 3

He is right on that ridiculous "surge" in Iraq having anything to do with anything other than the latest lies from the Bush administration. As for

supporting a surge in Afghanistan, he is following Bill Clinton's lead  who has been pushing this into

another black hole of trillions of dollars spent in an un winnable war

Why, you ask?  Well, you have to be macho, and military and tough given the  current sonambulistic  state of the American people when it comes to foreign affairs.

Answer 4

Probably because it is largely forgotten with all the attention going to Iraq, and we are closer to winning that war then the one in Iraq.  

Answer 5

Bin Laden can no longer threaten the US.  He died in Dec 2001.  Why do you think we haven't caught him?  

Answer 6

Well, first you have to understand a few things:

• The WMD lie to get troops into Iraq, negates every action that followed the decision to invade

• Osama was never in Iraq, & while we're spinning our wheels in someone else's Civil War, Osama continues to threaten the US.

• If there was no oil int Iraq, we wouldn't be there > just like we've stayed out of North Korea &  Darfur.

• You really don't want to know the truth though do you?  Cause you can't handle the truth that Bush is a war criminal & should be impeached.  

• But I'm guessing trading blood for oil works for you.