It was difficult enough for "the American people" (in general?) to go along with George W. Bush regarding his military invasion into Iraq when he ordered American soldiers to invade and disrupt the stable dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party who were running a strict law-and-order sovereign government there.
Finally it dawned on some that the Bush and Co. excursion into Iraq was:
1. to retaliate against anti-Israel Saddam for the SCUD missiles invasively launched into Tel Aviv and Haifa (Israel) from the direction of Iraq during the First Gulf War
2. to provide military strength to disassemble the antisemitic terrorist training camps that Saddam was allowing to operate within the geographical boundaries of Iraq
3. to prevent anti-Christian/antisemitic Saddam and his Baathists from using the military might of the Government of Iraq to disrupt OPEC oil transfer (foreign-oil supply) from the Middle East to America
4. to stop anti-America/antisemitic Saddam and his Baathists from developing nuclear weapons and the ICBM technology to launch those type of "weapons of mass destruction" not merely into Israel but other European-nation allies and even to the homeland of the United States.
Obama, during his professional and skillful silver-tongued-rhetoric campaign for the Presidency, lamented American military involvement in Iraq under the Bush Administration and promised military withdrawal away from Iraq (though not specifying exactly how many GI troops would be withdrawn, nor precisely when whatever small or larger number of troops would be sent home).
Under Obama as President, a substantial number of American soldiers are yet in Iraq, with attention about that now somewhat diverted to Obama sending 30,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
The rationale for Barack doing that is not clear to many of the American voters who voted for him. They had trouble enough with the perplexing inability of those of the Bush State Department (under Condi) and United Nations ambassadors to resolve differences through mere negotiations.
First of all, to the common person in America (and I will now perhaps naiively speak as one of them), sending GIs over to Afghanistan to fight bearded islamic men plus black-shawled-and-robed fundamentalist muslim women is not a noble and worthy cause in the great-satan effort to conquer and defeat religious modesty of the Taliban.
Concerning nomadic-hillbilly subversives (hiding out in the sand dunes of Afghanistan near Pakistan) with the somewhat-nondefinable name of "Al Qaeda" is also troublesome to a lot of common-folk Americans. This time, it does not seem that Israel is directly threatened by the vague entity called Al Qaeda defending themselves by guerilla warfare now and then in the far distant country of Afghanistan.
Many in America are not convinced that moslem Afghanistan people want decadent-western democracy to bullishly take over their government and country. The same is true about how many Pakistani people feel about that.
To send American troops to Afghanistan to fight against sporadic forces of Al Qaeda here and there in the questionable attempt to prevent those of Al Qaeda from infiltrating into Pakistan to steal nuclear-bomb-making know-how and materials is a highly-debatable motivation in the minds of many.
Not only that, but nuclear weapons are relatively useless to produce in terms of their expense and the ability to deploy them non-transparently and internationally through advanced-enough missile delivery capabilities and equipment.
The transport of even small-scale "suitcase-bomb" nuclear weapons is a matter not for bulky-uniformed and overheated American troops spewing machine gun bullets and mortar shells into the possibly-noninhabited potential-hideout caves of Afghanistan deserts, but instead for alert and freely-discriminatory border agents and operatives who have no legal qualms about detaining suspicious visitors and both permanent or temporary would-be-immigrants into not simply America but countries of other allies.
That is not to say that NASA, the Air Force, the Navy, Marines, Army, and the Coast Guard do not have a serious responsibility to monitor airspace and submarine traffic for potentially-devastating hostile ICBM launchers, plus develop and freely utilize counter-insurgency weaponry to destroy such mechanisms of attack when airborne and threatening to strike domestic targets here and abroad.
Clearly, much of what used to be the stellar covert work of the CIA and NSA of the past - who could freely take the global-community-protecting law into their own hands - has now become the overt shenanigans and exhibitionism of those in the Executive Office and the abortion-choice-and-homogays-accomodating Democrat-majority Congress.
Moreover, because the CIA, NSA, and other groups have been hamstrung by partisan congressional oversight and investigative hearings and committees imposing hands-tied regulations and prohibitions tainted with network-media-exacerbated partisan prejudice (agitated by anti-Biblical noncivil libertarians and mopheaded feminist-sexist talking heads puffed by their pussywimp patsies), many Americans bemoan and decry the deplorable international situation with a: "Where are the movie-hero Raid-on-Entebbe Rambos, Terminators, James Bond 007, and stealth gladiators of Mission Impossible when we need them?"
One of the fears of antiwar protesters within America is that trying to pick what they deduce as a non-necessary fight with needless show of bullyboy belligerance against distant foreigners will agitate and rouse them to come to America to retaliate and endanger neighborhood community safety.
Another fear is that the younger children and young fathers of urban and suburban America will be required to go to war and possibly become casualties if the wartime hostilities escalate up to require a national draft of not simply teenaged sons but even up-to-middle-aged dads. Such mortal threats go way beyond half-hearted part-time service in the National Guard on weekends to pick up a few extra bucks and qualify for military-funded ROTC higher education.
Real blood-and-guts warfare.....with the likelihood of painful injuries and handicapping dismemberment.....is not a harmless, play-until-boredom-or-bedtime, virtual-video-games computer fantasy.
However, the antagonism against sending troops overseas to perhaps die in combat is not justified, because it is really not any business of civilian antiwar protesters to object, being that at this point America has voluntary military service and no [mandatory] draft, so that those who enlist are not required by law to do so....and of course it almost goes without saying that soldiers are expected to give their lives for whatever military endeavors present themselves. Those who do not want to fight do not need to enlist in military service, but those who do enlist obviously are expected to perhaps die in military combat. Duh.
The criticism of war being funded by taxing civilians is outweighed by the fact that wars are profitable to employ people for production of wartime goods and services and thus beneficial for the economy.
At the heart of wars are territorial-ownership disputes involving coveting items thereon. During World War II, for example, both the Japs and the Americans wanted Hawaii. Perhaps Japanese imperialialist also wanted Burma and New Zealand and Australia plus the surrounding South Pacific islands in their expansionist quest. Their lethal aggression at Pearl Harbor was not a congenial and diplomatic way to draw the boundary line.
Similarly, Hitler and the Nazis should have been content with containment in Germany and Austria, instead of reaching out in hostility into France, Norway, Britain, Africa, and Russia...let alone attacking U.S. ships in the Atlantic trying to trade with England.
A typical cause (but not reason) to get involved in war conflict is the questionable desire to assist foreign-country allies with whom there is commercial and cultural trade and exchange. The Scriptural imperative of everyone having to "bear his own burden" is a wise way to view legitimate and prudent isolationism, and the Biblical saying of heeding: "He who meddles in an argument not his own is like who picks up a passing dog by the ears" goes a long way to complement another life-sustaining Biblical directive of: "Do not contend with a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm."
An apprehension that some Pakistanis have is that increased American-troop infiltration into Afghanistan will cause re-location of some Taliban leaders into Pakistan, and a back-and-forth shuttle will take place.
And should bearded Pakistani men along with shawled-and-robed Pakistani women allow decadent-western soldiers to overrun their towns and cities? The proposition of Isaiah applies:
Isaiah 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals perversely and does not see the majesty of the LORD.
If an Amish or islamic-fundamentalist foundation gave a million-dollar donation to a Hugh Hefner foundation, would the classy and already-affluent pervert then give up his licentuous-bunny-friends-visited mansions, play parties, and porno empire?
A goodly number of Pakistanis have every intention of complying with:
Matthew 7:6 "Do not give [wintertime-mopheaded american-female] dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before [summertime-sleevesless/slacksless/soxless american-female] swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
Unless the western-Coalition (and especially American) military completely annihilates the terroristic antisemitic thugs of Al Qaeda wherever they temporarily relocate to and however they disguise themselves, the following will certainly occur:
Proverbs 19:19 A man of great wrath will pay the penalty; for if you deliver him, you will only have to do it again.
When reluctant-to-invade-Iraq George W. Bush arranged for Congress-approved NATO-concordant Coalition troops to fight in Iraq, the protection-of-foreign-oil-supply-and-of-Israel reasons made it clear to the non-biased, fair-minded, reasonable, non-naiively and non-gullibly honest, discerningly-knowledgeable that it was a war of expedience and probable-cause prevention. However, in the case of Obama and his administration escalating war not merely in Afghanistan but possibly even in Pakistan - without a convincing cause of protecting either world foreign-oil supply nor Israeli security - Barack's prejudiced-partisan promised-withdrawal effort is not destined to bring global peace, but only exposes hypocritical pseudo-antiwar Obama himself as a 'Where's-The-Change?" warmonger and not a world-community-uniting peacemaker.
Regardless of who is considered to be non-competitively helping who in mutual interdependence relating to Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and hosted by such Qur'anic cultics, a plethoria of productive Christianity-compliant perks are possible:
James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
First Peter 4:8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.
