Herman Cain says he would consult with the generals in order to decide whether to keep US troops in Afghanistan. But this effectively means that he wants the troops to stay there because the generals will obviously want to stay there since if the generals leave, they will effectively put themselves out of a job.
It's like asking any government employee reliant on the state whether his job should be eliminated. He'll say no, of course.
It's also like asking an artist midway through a never-ending sculpture whether his patrons should stop funding his work.
Moreover, it is logical to assume that most or all of the generals in Afghanistan want to be there, because those who wouldn't want to be there would not be assigned there or would have resigned by now.
So we can conclude that Herman Cain either doesn't have the forethought to realize this or that he really is naive enough to think that the generals will be objective in their advice...or he is sidestepping the war question.
But if Cain supports the meaningless opium-abetting war in Afghanistan, then how can he be called a fiscal conservative? If he is unwilling to limit the colossal "defense" (should be called offense) budget, then what is the use of voting for him?
I believe that running up deficits to be as large as they are is treasonous to the Republic. The defense most needed is one that costs nothing: to defend the nation from the military-industrial complex bankrupting it.
That is ironic isn't it. The very body supposedly responsible for the safety of the nation is guiding it toward financially dire straits--with the help of a little FOX News brainwashing to keep the voters in line. It is a gloomy situation.
Regardless, hopefully Mr. Cain changes his position and joins Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who have explicitly called for the war to end immediately.
Cain on Afghanistan begins at 7:05 minutes in the video below.
Herman Cain Says Defense Budget Too Small