If grassroots Democrats disagree on even what the situation is now, there cannot be any agreement on or support for a course of action. I was even more curious to see the posts on Free Republic if one does a search on Afghanistan on that site. One gets postings like these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2396331/posts
- "Isn't the lesson of Viet Nam to not snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory?
- Obama's toughest challenge will be to win over his most loyal political supporters.
- His entire decision (or non-decision) on Afghanistan is politically motivated. He's going to put on a show at West Point and blame the former Commander in Chief's failure to capture Bin Laden as justification for committing more troops. He is the ulitmate coward.
See more of the same here, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2396317/posts , here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2396313/posts and here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2396306/posts
Freepers and, by extension, since I use them as a baseline for the rightmost half of the Republican Party, Republicans don't seem to have a strategy at all for what to do with Afghanistan. Republican grass roots discussions on Afghanistan seem geared towards whether Obama will "surrender , whether Democrats were being honest when they said Iraq was the false war and Afghanistan is the real one, and other similar talk (when they weren't issuing odd, veiled threats against the President). I couldn't find many posts on Free Republic where a Freeper laid out a suggested course of action regarding Afghanistan. Admittedly, I didn't spend a ton of time researching, but this is very strange from a group that usually has a lot of detailed (and generally gung ho) suggestions about war. Regarding past conflicts like Iraq, it wasn't hard to find suggestions from Freepers about how the war should be waged. It is curious to me that it is hard now.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
