30,000 More

Last week, Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The plan is for the troops to be added by next summer and begin to be withdrew in July 2011. It sparked a huge response, some happy with his decision, some not. Mostly not. The Republicans accused Obama of "aiding the Taliban insurgency by setting a date to begin a withdraw" and the Democrats criticized Obama for an "expensive expansion of an unpopular conflict at a time of economic hardship at home". In addition, John McCain added, "'What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies'". However, our own Representative, Doris Matsui said, "'I am encouraged by Obama's clear commitment to bring our military involvement in Afghanistan to a conclusion'".

Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan brings up a good point. He argues that bringing more troops in would increase Karzai's dependence on the U.S. military and prolong the country's involvement in the war. This is true. The goal of the war is to destroy al-Qaida and to turn over government and security responsibilities to Afghans as quickly as possible. But if we have thousands of troops over there, they will become dependent on us and it will make it harder for us to end the war.

Over 850 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Although some, including the President, think it's necessary to bring in more troops, I don't think it should happen. Increasing the number of troops increases the time we will be over there, which I wish was no time at all.