Public Skeptical of Afghanistan Troop Increase
Gallup’s latest polling reveals considerable public skepticism about the idea of sending 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan:
It’s worth noting that the question, as worded, specifically mentions that a 40,000 troop increase is what “the U.S. commanding general there has recommended” and that increasing troop levels still doesn’t secure majority support. Especially complicating the situation is the fact that the median position—keep things the way they are—actually has very little support. An overwhelming majority either want fewer troops or many more troops.
Meanwhile, support for escalating is heavily concentrated among self-IDed Republicans who are unlikely to back Obama’s re-election no matter what happens:
This strikes me as a notably high level of ideological polarization for a foreign policy issue that hasn’t emerged as a high-profile partisan fight.
When gaming this out politically, however, as is often the case I think it’s worth being somewhat skeptical about the significance of these kind of questions. If the military is really solidly behind the idea of sending more troops, the real political issue is how damaging would a prolonged fight with the military be? Or how likely would such a fight be to emerged? One assumes that doing something that prompts General McChrystal to resign would be a big political problem. At the same time, that would be an extreme step for McChrystal to take.
28 Responses to “Public Skeptical of Afghanistan Troop Increase”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Both the ongoing war in Afghanistan and the ongoing war in Iraq are unjust, and our withdrawal from both conflicts should be hastened.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Man, it must suck to be irrelevant.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
No shit. Hell, I don’t even think the advocates of sending more troops think it’s really going to accomplish some significant, lasting accomplishment. It’s just what you’re supposed to do because you’re not supposed to not do it.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I think that what first-term Presidents do is escalate wars, so I think Obama will send more troops. But if he doesn’t and McChrystal does resign and Obama survives, the norm whereby first-term Presidents escalate wars will be brought into serious doubt. Would the military and its powerful defense industry allies risk an out-and-out test of their political strength like that?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I’m skeptical, I’d like to know what winning is there and if winning means anything. I’m willing to put more troops there. I’m willing to help the people there. But does putting more troops there help the people? Obama is asking for more time to decide, and that’s a good thing. Until we can figure out what our goal is, I see no reason to fight harder for it. Bush had a reason to fight. Afghanistan is a logical route for an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to India and Halliburton was going to build it. But the Caspian Sea has a lot less oil than expected, so that pipeline won’t be built. Bush was fighting for Halliburton, what are we fighting for? Goats and opium?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
So are we going to just keep stop-lossing soldiers until we run out?
How many more contractors have to be sent with increased troops? Apparently, the Taliban is extorting a lot of money from U.S. contractors who pay them not to attack convoys.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Precisely why a warmed-over new breed candidate like Joe Sestak who’s challenging Spector for the D-nomination for the Senate and who favors escalating in Afghanistan is such a joke. Reminiscent of Gore’s Left 2000 challenger the clueless schlep Bill Bradley whose top foreign policy advisor was Kissinger. Will Obama pursue the best strategy for the country and begin a phased withdrawal? It’s doubtful, but the longer he dithers – the clearer the picture will be. Emmanuel has apparently already warned him that he’ll be “the next LBJ” if he does what McChrystal wants.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
It’s very depressing to learn that a majority of the somnolent voters don’t want all of the troops home by next Wednesday.
I’d bet that a majority of Republican Jaywalking war-monger voters can’t find Afghanistan on an unmarked globe.
Or Asia, for that matter.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Polling also shows a lot of skepticism about the health care bill the House passed. Far be it from Matt to notice that.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
For “skepticism” about the health care bill – there’s a priceless Ted Rall cartoon in which Americans without a car or decent public transport are all offered a free Maserati with the insurance paid up but violently refuse to take it ’cause it comes from the guv’ment. Once ObamaCare begins, all those less than prosperous folks agin it will suddenly turn silent.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
My reaction is similar to fostert’s: I’m not even really opposed to a troop escalation in principle, if it is necessary to accomplish the worthwhile goals espoused at this war’s outset. I’ve been a hawk on Afghanistan all along.
But nobody has been able to explain how sending more troops, or even waging a large-scale war, is going to accomplish anything worthwhile. Maybe it could have, a few years ago, when Shrub was chasing around fantasies of Arab Spring, but maybe it’s just too late.
Anyway, the important question isn’t whether or not to send 40,000 troops there over the next few months. There’s a prior question: what are we doing there, and should we stay or go? Maybe a troop surge would be a good tactical move as part of an ultimate withdrawal strategy over the next couple of years. Maybe we should stay over the long term, but only in a limited role that requires a much smaller number of troops than we have there now.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
#10 – Citing Ted Rall is kind of like citing a clown. Except the clown is funny, and doesn’t hate the world and everything in it…
November 12th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Speaking of clowns who hate everything in the world – how’s it going fuckwit? Is there some reason you are so fucking stupid as to not notice the difference between thinking it’s not a good idea to sink lives into murdering people for their own good and opposing providing them health care for their own good?
Jesus wept you are an unrelenting source of stupid. Ted Rall would have to have a frontal lobotomy and be dead for two weeks to sink to your level of stupidity.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
James, it would seem that in this case, the rest of the country has had a long time to ponder the issue: public shilling by the right wing for the war notwithstanding. It is, once again another case in which the right, the people that James and his gang of insular losers supports, that’s out of step with the rest of the nation.
As for health care reform, I too am pretty skeptical about death panels, mandatory euthanasia, and 6 month waiting periods for emergency surgery such as limb reattachment, and most of the public agrees with me. Thankfully, none of that is in the bill, though you spent time claiming otherwise.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
are so fucking stupid as to not notice the difference between thinking it’s not a good idea to sink lives into murdering people for their own good and opposing providing them health care for their own good?
Watching people die in afghanistan and laughing at the poor losers unable to afford health covering are great sources for amusement for James. In both cases, they allow him to belief that his mediocre life ignorant of the rest of the world and pointless job are worth living.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Tyro – I haven’t made many claims about the health bill. What I can say is that anything that large is bound to have many, many unintended consequence landmines in it. And if it’s such a great bill, then more time for the public to digest it would be a good thing – which makes me wonder about the House’s rush to vote.
On Afghanistan, I’ve said more than once that I’m highly skeptical of success there, never mind being able to define what success would even look like. I suppose it just makes a lefty’s head explode to contemplate the idea of a conservative/libertarian having that position. What the President should do in Afghanistan is either:
– define what he calls success, and then implement the appropriate policy (more troops/bribes/whatever)
– declare victory and leave
I’d lean towards the second one, since I don’t think a definable success in Afghanistan is feasible. The best policy post 9/11 would have been a rapid punitive raid (which is pretty much what we did), followed by a policy of bribing the various warlords it was feasible to bribe to keep the Taliban out. Instead, we decided on a policy of sorta/kinda nation building
What bothers me most about the current administration’s policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan is that it looks a lot like the previous administration’s plan there – muddle along, hope things get better, and continue to not have anything resembling a plan.
Finally, I’ll note that the anonymous coward and Tyro both play variations on the same form of argument: pick a strawman they claim to be the opposition, make absurd claims about what said strawman believes, and then proceed to ridicule the strawman. I’m sure that’s fun, but it doesn’t actually make any sense. It’s possible to be opposed to a huge federal takeover of health care and want something different than what we have now at the same time – you guys pigeonhole opposition every bit as well as you like to claim Rove did…
November 13th, 2009 at 12:00 am
You have to admit, the old simultaneous double resignation of the West Point duo would be devastating. I think if Petraes and McChrystal quit at the same time, something resembling chaos would be the result.
In many ways, the military is in the complete ascendancy. These are fucked up times, man, fucked up times. Tread carefully and wisely, Mr. Obama, and watch your back.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:43 am
James Robertson Says:
November 12th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
#10 – Citing Ted Rall is kind of like citing a clown. Except the clown is funny, and doesn’t hate the world and everything in it…
==========================================================
Well, at least most clowns can draw better
November 13th, 2009 at 2:45 am
JM Says:
November 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Meanwhile, support for escalating is heavily concentrated among self-IDed Republicans who are unlikely to back Obama’s re-election no matter what happens.
Man, it must suck to be irrelevant.
=======================================================
Maybe you should ask Deeds or Corzine about “irrelevant”
November 13th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Gallup has had lots of other interesting poll data lately.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124226/Republicans-Edge-Ahead-Democrats-2010-Vote.aspx
Registered voters prefer Republicans for the House, 48% to 44%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124202/No-Clear-Mandate-Americans-Healthcare-Reform.aspx
Americans have moved in a more negative direction on the basic issue of whether a new bill should be passed into law. Thirty-eight percent now say they would advise their member of Congress to vote against a new healthcare bill this year, while 29% would advise their member to vote for it, and about a third have no opinion. When those with no opinion are asked which way they lean, the verdict becomes 48% “against,” and 43% “for.” Both of these results are more negative than those from early October.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:21 am
In many ways, the military is in the complete ascendancy. These are fucked up times, man, fucked up times. Tread carefully and wisely, Mr. Obama, and watch your back.
No doubt. McChrystal is a snake as shown by his orchestrating the cover up of Pat Tillman’s death. He could be very very dangerous for Obama.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Campesino, I’m really sure the people of Afghanistan will risk their lives to support the Republicans on health care. Back in reality, it really doesn’t matter what we do there. Stabilizing Pakistan is the only thing that matters. Pakistan is concerned about Indian influence in Afghanistan. Not that they give shit about Afghanistan, it’s about that Indian influence. So let this go. Let India and Pakistan fight a war over it. Don’t want to go there? Well they really don’t either. So call the bluff and at least say we’re pulling out, and they have to figure it out. The threat to pull out will at least make India and Pakistan more cooperative. And if they don’t go along, then they can figure out their problems on their own. We leave, they call us back. In reality, nothing happens but calling a bluff.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am
fostert Says:
November 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Campesino, I’m really sure the people of Afghanistan will risk their lives to support the Republicans on health care.
=====================================================
Don’t know, but Mr Dithers has so embraced his role as The (Anti-)Decider I thought looking at polling about other events that will happen sooner would be fun
November 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Jim bob, we all know what you believe– mindlessly shilling for republicabs and spewing crap about how much you hate democrats because it makes you feel better about yourself and your worthless
life and beliefs. You claim to have some kind of sophisticated, informed beliefs, but when push comes to shove, you become a full-bore pro-bush pro-Cheney wingnut and lash put at the only dem politicians who ever gave about about your worthless ass. If you weren’t the creepy ignorant loon whose mindless hatred for liberals gives your life meaning, then you would actually have some moral objections to the republican patty which you still support. As it is, you are willing to put yourself as a moral cripple rather than do something useful with yourself.
In short, James, when it comes to matters of war and health care, you supported bush and McCain– who cares what you think? All you have is some consistent hippie-hate.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Are you really suggesting that Obama can just pretend that Bush never existed and enact the policies that he’d prefer in an ideal world?
ooooo. Campesino can parrot the talking points of war criminal and drunk hunter dick Cheney… Impressive. Maybe you might not want to repeat the phrases politicians who are followed only by the idiots and failures at places like the weekly standard and instead get some beliefs a s talking points of your own. It is bad enough to parrot others, but to appeal to one pf america’s most stupendous failures? Just shows why republicans don’t have the judgment to comment here.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
If the military is really solidly behind the idea of sending more troops, the real political issue is how damaging would a prolonged fight with the military be?
By all means let’s send more of our young people off to die, slaughter more afghans and waste our national treasure on a fools errand in order to avoid political damage to Obama.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Republicans: not losing every race since 2009.
Late 2009.
Campesino’s fronting is like a big foam “We’re #1 finger,” with four fingers held up.
Woo-hoo! Party!
November 14th, 2009 at 1:24 am
People dumb enough to fall for the WMD scam and the “Arab Spring” fairy tale don’t like the way Barack Obama goes about making decisions about war.
Good.