Don't kid yourself. President Obama's decision to withdraw 33 000 troops from Afghanistan before he stands for reelection is not driven by the United States' 'position of strength' in the war zone as much as it is by grim economic and political realities at home.

Now I know there are many Americans who say 'Get out of Afghanistan. Bring 'em all home.' And there are others who say 'Put in hundreds of thousands of more.'

I just think it would be unrealistic to suggest we're going to eliminate every last domestic insurgent in Afghanistan. Certainly the history of the country would indicate that's not a very realistic objective and I think we have to have realistic objectives.

We are particularly interested in the mental health programs and policies that support our troops and their families before during and after deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from serious long-term physical and mental health problems due to their service. It is unconscionable to cut the already limited health care benefits available to these brave men and women.

Remember the rights of the savage as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own.

We've got to see a state where the Afghan government can handle its own day-to-day security.

An interim government was set up in Afghanistan. It included two women one of whom was Minister of Women's Affairs. Man who'd she have to show here ankles to to get that job?

We all hoped in 2001 that we could put in place an Afghan government under President Karzai that would be able to control the country make sure al-Qaeda didn't come back and make sure the Taliban wasn't resurging. It didn't work out.

When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria you've got to be prepared as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan to become the government and I'm not sure any country either the United States or I don't hear of anyone else who's willing to take on that responsibility.

As a 22-year Army Veteran who served in Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and as a Civilian Advisor to the Afghan Army in Operation Enduring Freedom I understand both the gravity of giving the order and the challenge of carrying it out.

A fly cannot go in unless it stops somewhere therefore weapons fuel food money will not go to Afghanistan unless the neighbors of Afghanistan are working are cooperating either being themselves the origin or the transit.

The Afghans did not have sophisticated weapons like the Soviets did but with their faith they defeated a superpower.

The West has been able to bring Afghanistan a much better health service better education better roads a better economy though some have benefited more some have benefited less from that economic well-being in Afghanistan.

I don't think the Palestinian people or Afghan children or some other things I'm concerned about are at the top of other people's agendas - not right now when America is going through such a recession and people are suffering across the board financially. But I think all that will change.

Barack Obama's life was so much simpler in 2009. Back then he had refined the cold act of blaming others for the bad economy into an art form. Deficits? Blame Bush's tax cuts. Spending? Blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No business investment? Blame Wall Street.

If there's ever an example that military power alone cannot be successful in Afghanistan I think it was the Soviet experience.