[vundy33]

We cannot afford to rebuild nation after nation after they have attacked us. Knowing that our military will leave countries in better shape than they found them is not much of a deterrent to our potential enemies. It was in our national interest to rebuild western Europe and Japan after WWII because we needed markets for our products. How is rebuilding Afghanistan in our national interests? Do you think that once the Taliban retake power that they will show any reluctance to host anti-American terrorists? I don't. We should have destroyed as many Taliban and al Qaeda fighters as possible, destroyed as much of their capacity to make war as possible, and then left.

There is a better case to be made for doing some rebuilding in Iraq because of its strategic location and history of a more civil society, but Obama's failure to negotiate an agreement to station American troops there after the war suggests that we may have thrown a lot of money down a rat hole there, too.

Well, I agree to a certain extent. But, these nations don't attack us, groups in them do. It's not rebuilding the entire country, we leave plenty of stuff jacked up. Quite a bit of the rebuilding benefits us as much as it does the locals. But showing good will, even if it's false good will, just straight up helps us in the long run. We've made so many enemies with stupid mistakes over the years, like Abu Ghraib, the Koran burning crap, ect. If a bridge that we have money spent on a year before we even start on it, keeps a few people from wanting to pick up an AK and shoot at us, I'm for it.

In the long run, you are right, it is a waste. We spent so much more in Iraq...and it's gone to nothing. The only positive I see in Afghan is the good people that are there get to use it, and maybe it will curb a few people from wanting to shoot at us.

But, there will always be someone wanting to kill us. It's all one big cluster**** really.