Originally Posted by Eleven
Doesn't really seem responsible to me especially now that his stance has changed to, according to the most recent debate, a reduction of troops in Iraq after 16 months with an associated increase in troops in Afghanistan.
What exactly do you think is different? In January, 2007, his suggestion for a phased withdrawal from Iraq was rejected, so it never happened. Now, he's saying he'll begin the same phased withdrawal as soon as he gets into office, and it'll take 16 months to complete. There's a minor revision of the timeline there, but the basic concept is exactly the same.
As for Afghanistan, we went there to go after Al Qaida and the government that supported them, right after 9/11. Obama didn't disagree with that one the way he did with Iraq. We haven't finished that job yet, and it's going badly, because Bush neglected it in favor of Iraq, so Obama wants to send more troops there. However, the amount of troops he wants to send isn't nearly as many as would be leaving Iraq, so a lot of our troops will be able to come home.
Personally, I'm anti-war in general, and I'm a bit impatient with both plans. But it's still a hell of a lot better than McCain's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely AND send more troops to Afghanistan. Where does he think he's going to get those troops from? Our military is already stretched too thin, and he's already stated that he's opposed to a draft.