| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Afghanistan | ||
| Most Americans say Afghan war not worth fighting | ||
| 2009-08-20 | ||
WASHINGTON -- A majority of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting and oppose sending more US troops to fight a growing insurgency, a poll showed. The survey results show US public support sliding for the war as Afghans prepare to vote Thursday in a pivotal election and amid speculation that the top US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, will request more troops.
Only 24 percent said more US forces should be deployed, while 27 percent said the troop levels should be kept the same and 45 percent said the troop commitment should be reduced. In a January survey, only 29 percent said the number of troops should be cut back. It was the second poll this month that revealed public support slipping for the war. In a CNN-Opinion Research Corporation survey released earlier this month, 54 percent opposed the US-led fight, with only 41 percent in favor. The latest Washington Post poll, carried out between August 13-17, showed Americans had doubts that Thursday's elections would result in an effective Afghan government. Only 31 percent said they were confident that the vote would produce a government that could rule effectively while a 64 percent majority said they were not confident of such an outcome. Despite signs of public anxiety, a majority of 60 percent approve of how President Barack Obama has handled the war, while 33 percent disapproved, the poll said. Opinion was divided as to whether the United States was winning the war, with 42 percent saying Washington was winning while 36 percent said the US was losing. Opposition to the war has grown among those who form Obama's core of support -- liberals and Democrats, the survey said. Nearly two-thirds of staunch Democrats now feel "strongly" that the war was not worth fighting, it said. And support for the war among voters who identify themselves as liberals has dropped dramatically. Strong approval for Obama's approach to the war among liberals has fallen 20 points and 63 percent of liberals want troop levels reduced. Public unease has been reflected in Congress, where some of Obama's fellow Democrats have voiced worries about the open-ended US commitment. Support for the war is running strong among Republicans, however, with 70 percent saying the war was worth fighting, according to the poll. The survey was based on a sample of 1,001 adults and has a margin of error of three points, according to the Washington Post website. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #20 I believe Gen. Dave McKiernam (before he was unceremoniously relieved) was....asking for additional boots on the ground as well. 30,000 pairs. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-08-20 22:50 |
| #19 Old Patriot gets it down to basics. Pakistan is the problem. We and others got the Pakistanis into the world show to counter India, then palzie walzie with the USSR. Remember Kissinger's Tilt in favor of Pakistan™? Well, it came to bite us in the a$$. Afghanistan is the symptom but Pakistan, as it stands, is the disease. Give Rageboy money and nukes and you have a big migraine. Pakistan needs to go back to tribal fiefs and its nukes need to be taken away. The world will be a better place. Pakistan goes nutbag nuke and it becomes a Roentgen Soup Bowl. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-08-20 21:20 |
| #18 The most important thing that the US needs to do is to totally destroy Pakistan's ability to do ANYTHING militarily, give all territory west of the Indus to Afghanistan, and everything east of the Indus to India. The British thought they were so smart to "divide and conquer" the Pashtuns. Instead, all they did was to provoke an unending war. Pakistan, as long as it exists, will be a ready source of cannon fodder in the "war against terrorism". Destroying it, dividing it up and totally eliminate it as a nation, will not only reduce that role significantly, but also send a clear message to all the rest of the a$$holes in the Muddled East that we WILL eventually get tired of their bs, and respond. I'll guarantee you that five minutes after the capitulation of Pakistan, the "Palestinians" will discover a new willingness to talk SERIOUSLY about peace. I'm not sure Syria would recover from the shock, and Iran will immediately begin honest discussions with anyone who will listen. Until then, however, the whole area will continue to be a sore spot for everyone. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-08-20 19:19 |
| #17 That doesn't mean a perpetual war and permanent garrisoning of the place, but it does mean defeating the Taliban. I agree with that. Though I think if that was the original plan, it might have been counterprodctive to make deals with the local forces to let the Talibs go free out the south side of the city while the friendlies entered it from the north. Leading me to believe I have no idea what the hell our goals are there or that someone responsible for achieving them didn't know how to accomplish said goal. I dunno. Thinking about Afghanistan hasn't given me a good feeling since about '02. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-08-20 17:40 |
| #16 Especially if you start by banning the phrase War on Terror. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-08-20 17:28 |
| #15 "They aren't saying much of anything now" I am not quite sure who counts as a progressive, as I consider myself a progressive, (the Progressive Policy Institute also consider progressive appropriate for the DLC agenda) but some use progressive to refer to the more left wing of the Dem party. I certainly continue to consider the war in afghanistan necessary. I would say most Dems do. Prof Walt does not, and wrote a piece in For Pol saying why, to which there was a reply by Peter Bergen. As for adopting unpopular positions, well BHO's team has shown a penchant for not panicing in rough spots. That he isn't doing so now, is a good sign. That of course does not rule out the possibility he will panic later. He of course has not won over the people to his stand. He has not proven to be the magic persuader some thought he would be. Nor has he, until recently, really addressed persuading the public on Afghanistan. What the public sees is steady casualties, the prospect of more as the US profile increases (JUST like the surge in Iraq, BTW) and an Afghan govt that tolerates corruption and even drug smuggling, and that carps at the actions of US forces. Running the WOT is not easy. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-20 16:28 |
| #14 I hate to bust anyone's bubble here, but the astounding fact is that Pakistan has 176,000,000 people (source: CIA Factbook), making it the 7th most populous country on Earth. By comparison, Afghanistan has 33,000,000 people. (Iraq has only 29,000,000). All friendly forces in Afghanistan total about 100,000, plus 90,000 Afghan army forces, for whatever good they are. Afghanistan has about the same population as California, in a land area almost exactly four times as large as that of California. And we are trying to police it with the equivalent of a single Army-sized element. And right next door is a country that is over half the size in population of the United States. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-08-20 16:22 |
| #13 1) to Ebbang: the original goal was to a) destroy al-Qaeda b) remove the Taliban from power and prevent them from coming back c) prevent al-Qaeda or anyone else from using Afghanistan to launch terrorist attacks on the U.S. Except for pinching Binny, we accomplished 2.5 of our goals -- al-Q was hammered hard but not destroyed, the Taliban are (currently) out of power, and no one is using Afghanistan to attack the homeland. 2) to remoteman: the strategic importance follows from our previous goals, as above. We don't want the Taliban to come back into power because they would in turn invite terrorist groups such as al-Q to use their country as a base to launch attacks on us. That doesn't mean a perpetual war and permanent garrisoning of the place, but it does mean defeating the Taliban. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-08-20 15:47 |
| #12 What is the strategic significance of Afghanistan? I don't think there is much. The place is a tribal crap-hole. Add to this the list of other negatives...enemy has safe haven next door in another tribal crap-hole, we have to resupply on long routes through enemy territory, the terrain reduces many of our technological advantages, the locals don't give a shit, etc, etc. I say we declare victory after this election, get out and leave with the warning we will nuke the place from orbit if anything bad comes from there. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2009-08-20 13:06 |
| #11 They don't have to make public the goals of fighting the war in Afghanistan, but they had darn well better have some. It is not clear to me that we have any realistic chance of achieving the more obvious or acknowledged goals using the strategies and tactics we appear to be employing. Our domestic politics make it highly unlikely that we will be able to change to effective strategies. What I suspect we will do is the same thing we did in Vietnam - futz around several years getting our guys killed while we try to find a way to get out and save face. Bush had it right initially - declare victory and move the war to Iraq, where it could potentially be fought effectively and where there were worthwhile goals. But our own internal politics wrecked that plan. Zero et al are in water WAY over their heads with this war. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-08-20 12:30 |
| #10 Anguper Hupomosing9418 That (quarantine) is my favoured option. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-08-20 12:22 |
| #9 I always thought the original goal was to bring Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri to justice. Was I wrong? Well, we could get lucky with a drone attack but that doesn't seem like much of a strategy. Those guys are in Pakistan and Pakistan is the enemy. The Taliban are straw men who don't matter to anyone outside of Afghanistan. If we are not willing to go into Pakistan what is the point? Opium? To the donks, as cynical, treasonous and bitterly partisan as they are, Iraq was never anything but a club they could use to bash Bush. But I could understand nation building in Iraq. Saddam had it coming, the people are not all crazy, the location is strategic and there is the oil. Beyond that, it teaches ME leaders the lesson that if they screw with us we could do it to them too. But what have we taught Pakistan? That they can screw with us and we'll give them billions of dollars? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-08-20 12:00 |
| #8 The goals of the war should be 1. Elimination of Taliban 2. See 1 As long as Af is a uncivilized hideout for barbarian worshipers of Mohammed it will be a problem for the rest of the world. Too bad we can't blockade the mountain passes & roads & keep them all in there to kill each other to their heart's content. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-08-20 11:53 |
| #7 What do we want to win? The goals of the war should be 1. Elimination of Taliban 2. See 1 |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-08-20 11:49 |
| #6 I do not think this war can be "won" or even the country "stabalized". 10,000 years of tribalism and centuries of "mo's" teachings are large obstacles ro overcome |
| Posted by: Beavis 2009-08-20 11:39 |
| #5 I do not think this war can be "won" or even the country "stabalized". |
| Posted by: bman 2009-08-20 11:30 |
| #4 I believe Gen. Dave McKiernam (before he was unceremoniously relieved) was....asking for additional boots on the ground as well. Gen. McChrystal's latest strategy: The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan may look to replace desk jockeys with gun-toters while keep troop levels even in the Taliban-infested war zone, The Washington Times reports. Many of these so called "desk jockey's" are females soldiers and Marines. Are we now putting these people out on combat patrols? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-08-20 09:20 |
| #3 Iraq clearly and distinctly showed us that when occupying a dysfunctional country, both every effort to preserve any of the local systems of government and authority are counterproductive; *and* that introducing proven western systems of government and authority work. If Afghanistan fails, it will be primarily because that in the name of "cultural respect", and other such stupid political correctness, we tried to build on a rotten foundation, instead of replacing it entirely with one that worked. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-08-20 09:18 |
| #2 Most Americans have been given a cultural lobotomy by the MSM to forget. What Pearl Harbor? You only have to reduce the place where they are well too occupied in dealing with each other to be a threat to the rest of the world. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-08-20 09:15 |
| #1 I don't believe Afghanistan can have a democracy as there is no Afghan demos. Afghanistan/North Pakistan should be several nations. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-08-20 08:29 |