BRUSSELS – There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn’t led to anything close to victory.

Change it again, Cynthia. Leaving our troops at their current levels with momentum on the enemy’s side is not a good thing. We’re losing more of our precious soldiers every week.

Withdrawing to leave Afghanistan (and the region) in chaos over who’s ultimately going be in control is even worse. How will we influence the world for the better without being involved, and how can we be involved by running home every time we get out-thought and out-fought?

And what are we doing to our allies by running away, leaving them ultimately go it alone against Al Qaeda and anyone else wanting to destroy freedom in their part of the world?

Things used to be fairly simple when dealing with our enemies, but not anymore. We can’t win by just military means alone, and we can’t run away every time we get out-matched (which apparently is our fate until we learn to change).

There is a third (next-level) option, and that’s putting the defense of freedom and the Free World on the whole Free World itself, and learning to deal effectively with hot spots like Afghanistan. It’s the only way we’ll ever have the troop numbers and overall resources to get the job done quickly and efficiently.

We’re dealing with a borderless enemy in Al Qaeda with its divide-and-conquer strategy, and how is running away or staying with inadequate troop levels and resources doing anything but helping it win? Is there anyone these days NOT understanding that Al Qaeda’s strategy is actually working? Cynthia, that means we’re losing the War on Terror!

We need troop numbers and resources, and from Vietnam until now, we’ve never had enough of either, save our one quick skirmish with Saddam in Desert Storm when we were guided by the genius of the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force) and had a large-enough coalition.

And while things are much more difficult now, this basic approach is the correct one, but it needs to be on a whole-Free-World level – a democratic alliance, if you will, that cannot be beaten in any way, shape, or form.

Not only will we start winning these things for a change and adding to the Free World in the process, we’ll be doing it in the only way possible. Add to this that, as an alliance, the Free World will have increasingly non-violent options available as means-to-an-end, and we can finally start bringing that peace everyone keeps talking about but no one seems to think they’ll see in their lifetime. So will this be a bad thing?

Like I said, Cynthia, change it again. We haven’t lost yet!

We must apologize to everyone including native americans who could not come out of the stone age to protect where they lived or what they believed in. I agree with you cynthia we too should fall back and let the rest of the world take care of things. Maybe they will treat us like we treated the poor stone agers when we came to America to spread socialism.

Their mission in Afghanistan is to sit and wait until Obama decides what to do.Some time next year.Maybe.

Now for my take on these issues. First of all, I am a radical liberal who thought Obama was too conservative to be president in the 21st century although I voted for him [who else was there?]. Supposedly President Obama had studied the Afghan situation thoroughly before even being elected so he has had almost two years of prep time for any decisions on that war. I find his current vacilation unacceptable. Centuries of warfare in that ill-fated “nation” have all been disastrous for outside armies and while it is always admirable to spread the blessings of liberal [yes, all you ranting "conservatives," the political philosophy that founded and still guides this nation is historically radically liberal] western political and economic thought, it isn’t always in our best interests to think that stable, capitalist democracies result from armed invasions.

Now for all that BS about helping the poor Afghan farmers grow crops other than poppies. As far as I can see, they are following radical conservative economic theory perfectly — grow what is cheap and easy AND sell to the market at the highest price as they supply that which is highest in demand [is anyone excited about and demanding Afghan grown cotton, beans, corn or whatever?]. I think the farmers employ western capitalist theories to near perfection. That they are doing this against our best interests is deplorable considering all the lives and treasure we have invested in their “nation.” In reality, their main export crop is probably killing more Americans daily than any terrorist or jihadist inspired by Osama bin Laden ever hoped to do. They are little better than murderers whose product is quite effectively destroying many American lives in all areas of this nation. And they do it for “filthy lucre” which is somehow even more reprehensible although perfectly in line with the free market capitalism and supply side theories so lovingly adored by Reagan conservatives.

I can hear you all now asking, “Okay, smart ass, you can criticize but what remedies can you supply?” Valid question and here is my solution. We can probably spend far less money on quick, surgical, multiple invasions like the ones that toppled Sadam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan than we have in eight years of occupation, warfare, and billions to change any “hearts and minds” — so destroy those governments that are “evil” and if they spring up again in a few years time [as is likely], do it again. Maybe after a while, they might get the idea that it isn’t so smart to f____ with the West. Now the lesson they learn is, “Let them destroy our government and wait for all the billions in handouts as we continue to do as we please.” In my plan, there would be no handouts or help. You messed up and now take care of yourselves. At the same time, we should use all our aerial technology to wipe out any and all poppy or drug fields that come up on the radar screen. The heroin they produce is more lethal right here on Main Street America than most of the bullets expended by Al Quaida in the Middle East. I have no compassion for the growers of death dealing drugs which corrupt our society probably as much as the Karzai regime is corrupt — just in a different way. In the United States, we have severely punished [financially] the comparatively innocuous makers and purveyors of tobacco products but want to treat with kid gloves the growers and suppliers of lethal drugs in Afghanistan??? Does that make sense? Coming from a family decimated by cancer, I have no love for tobacco but it is nothing compared to heroin. Just trying to put things into a little perspective here.

If this policy were followed, there would be no questions about troop levels in Afghanistan. We would have no troops there longer than it took to take down bad governments and leave. It would also be cost effective in the long run and please fiscal conservatives. Nor would there be any controversy over wimpy presidents who take two years to make a major decision on foreign policy. And yes, all you conservatives are right that it is the “bleeding heart” brand of liberals who would oppose such a policy and might be making Obama so indecisive. This “radical liberal” isn’t of that group. I love this nation and all the freedoms it has provided and have no qualms about destroying those who set out to destroy our way of life.

Food for thought? I hope so.

I thought months ago when they removed you from the editorial chair and moved you to the DC office I thought you would become more informative and thoughtful. Unfortunately after the past several articles that you wrote all proved to be nothing other then propaganda for the administration it has become universally clear that nothing you say will every be anything other than hype and spin.

As a country we are hurting and hurting bad. And instead of pushing the president to actually live up to the hype and hope that was promised last year, you choose instead to help further the problems by backing the administration in its indecision and failures.

With people like you arguing that the administration can do no wrong, I’m persuaded that 2010 is going to be a lot worst than 2009.

Got Change, ’cause I’m running out.