In a few months/weeks the spotlight will fade on Afghanistan and the war will grind on

[G_j]

as it has, just worse. But life will go on in America, and the media will distract us with more 'important' things.
So if you are uncomfortable with the emotion and anger over the escalation of war, relax, it will all blend back in to the blur of our stressed out lives.
Unless you know someone who is there, or a military family, we can return to our uncomfortably numb existence.

[frazzled]

1. No one has been paying attention to it for 8 years

Which is why, I suppose, no one believed Obama during the two years he was campaigning, when he repeatedly called for refocusing the effort on Afghanistan. I guess everyone thought, yeah, that old thing. Whatever.

And which is why I am kind of surprised about people's reaction to last night. We've been increasing troops (by 40,000 I believe) all year, and no one has said boo. And it's kind of why I'm surprised that the administration brought about this debate by making a big deal of it themselves. (Not that it isn't a big deal, but the issue has been flying under the radar for a long time, and probably could have done so.) I am thinking they wanted to create a debate about this, which is, I think, a good thing. People had become dulled to the issues in Afghanistan for many many years. Whether you are for the new agenda or against it, at least it is finally out in the open.

But you're right: this will all die down in a few weeks or months, because very few of us have any skin in the game, and those who do seem prepared to accept the mission. I don't know what's right or wrong in this case. I just know that a lot of the shock that there is gambling in Casablanca is extremely hypocritical.

[G_j]

4. interesting point

They could have given this a lower profile. That is puzzling. Debate is, of course, a good thing, but I wish it had happened (in the media) before Obama's announcement.

[bigjohn16]

2. I'm sure someone else will do it but if not I'll try to post the name of every dead soldier.

So the people who support the escalation can see that their support is paying dividends.

[G_j]

6. thank you

:thumbsup:

[phasma ex machina]

3. Bank on M$M breathlessly spewing meaningless drivel. nt

[Postman]

5. Screw that. What's the latest on Tiger Woods?

:sarcasm:

[G_j]

7. thanks for the

unrecs :-)

[StarfarerBill]

8. Thanks for this timely observation, and I unrecced an unrec; back up to zero.

:thumbsup:

[ThomWV]

9. You may be wrong this time - its an easily manipulated talking point in an election year.

I doubt that this one is going to go away. We may not hear a word about Iran, but I think Afghanistan will be with us through the off-year election brouhaha.

[Solly Mack]

10. The spotlight won't dim, I don' think

If by spotlight you mean coverage in the news.


The spotlight that was once on Iraq has moved to Afghanistan, and Iraq, where troops and civilians are still dying, has already dimmed in some minds - some actually think it's a done deal. Iraq and Afghanistan have switched places more or less. Iraq is now becoming the "forgotten war" - the phrase used about Afghanistan up until recently.

If for no other reason than daily commentary on how well Obama is doing in Afghanistan, Afghanistan will remain in the news. They'll be both positive and negative reports of the same events. There will be carefully worded briefs put out and a whole lot of wiggle room for "horizon event" adaptation.

There will also be the numbers game (X number of insurgents killed today), evaluation reports on how the Afghan army is doing, schools built/painted...pretty much the same things you've heard already about Iraq. That's not my being cynical either...just take a headline coming out of Afghanistan and search for a similar one that came out of Iraq. Don't take my word for it. If you hear a headline you know you've heard before...just look. It'll be there.


The level of outrage over the escalation will gear down and it will be as you said.