The Time to Get Out of Afghanistan is Now - Not 2014

Absolutely. Only one of the five candidates agrees with you.

Unfortunately, that candidate appears to be only a footnote in the republican primaries. Sorry about that, Matthew.

I thought at the time failure to win Iowa would make victory nearly impossible, I think that was right. Either way, I'm still backing him (how could I support anyone else?).

I don't think it's useless to back him - the more delegates he has racked up, the more of a voice he has in the policies the party pushes. My point here tough is that IT'S TIME TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN. Obama should stop following the Bush doctrine "to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here." The better way to fight terrorism is to stop funding them by ending our oil addiction. At any rate, IT'S TIME TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN.

I wish Obama and others would reach the same conclusion: leave. But they won't, or not soon enough. The fact that troops are still in South Korea, Japan, Iraq, and Germany suggests the government would stay in Afghanistan for decades if they could.

All of this militarism of course unnecessarily uses more oil and creates more pollution.

Yep. Obama and the British PM reasserted today the time-table for leaving Afghanistan. I think public pressure will change that - or perhaps the election will. I sure as hell not going to vote for Santorum, but I will be watching how Romney "tacks to the middle", if he is nominated. Obama has been ok on renewable energy (which does address global warming), but even his approach has been tepid. If republicans take more of an approach like Lovins has suggested, to end all energy subsidies and tax breaks - and he continues to say we need to leave Afghanistan now - then I will vote for him. I end up hating LBJ, and I still do. I hate to think that he is the model for an Obama presidency, but it is looking more that way.

"All of this militarism of course unnecessarily uses more oil and creates more pollution."

Fortunately, the military understands that, and is moving more toward renewable energy and electric transportation.

Fortunately, the military understands that, and is moving more toward renewable energy and electric transportation.

A green 'empire' probably still creates more pollution than no empire without emphasis on green energy. In other words, finding cost effective ways to reduce pollution is nice, but it's no comparison to not creating the pollution in the first place.

The military's move to renewable energy and electric transportation certainly makes future conflicts less likely in two ways. First, it decreases dependency on oil and helps scale green products for mass consumption, and second, it decreases ghg emissions, making increased risks of conflict over resources (e.g., water) less likely. As far a "empire" is concerned, I agree - we need less of a military presence in the world. But a military that is actively engaged in creating the conditions to help make that possible - that's a good thing. And I'm certainly all for no creating pollution in the first place. Renewable energy and electric transportation are essential to a sustainable economy, in which pollution is not created in the first place. Finally, if we are switching to renewable energy, we don't really need a military presence throughout the world "to protect our vital national interests," and we don't fund our enemies. So, I see it more as a gestalt of interrelated aspects, working to a goal that we probably agree on. Again, the military's purchase of green energy and electric transportation help that to happen - kind of like it happened with information technology - scaling, that is.