Obama’s Decision On Afghanistan Puts Him At Biggest Risk Among Dems
Yesterday Chris Bowers made the interesting point that Obama’s decision on Afghanistan is likely to most heavily impact his standing among Democrats — and that if he damages his standing among the base it risks imperiling the rest of his agenda.
Comes now some new Gallup polling that seems to confirm this: It finds that Obama’s decision is likely to have its greatest impact among fellow Dems, and may not change his standing much with Republicans and independents.
Though nothing has been decided, Obama’s advisers are said to be leaning towards sending around 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and most of the various scenarios Obama is considering entail a troop increase. The rub, from Gallup, is that a huge percentage of Dems don’t want any increase:
If Obama decides to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, he will be going against the wishes of the vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats. In fact, 60% of Democrats would like the president to begin to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, while 26% support a troop increase of about 40,000 (18%) or less than that number (8%).
Meanwhile, Obama’s decision is less likely to impact his standing among Republicans. That’s because the majority of them support sending 40,000 more troops, which Obama is not expected to do. And independents are evenly split between favoring an increase of any size and favoring a decrease — suggesting that whatever he does, it’s unlikely to meaningfully shift his standing with that group.
Bowers posits that Obama is right now “functioning primarily on a base of Democratic support, which an escalation in Afghanistan has the potential to damage,” perhaps harming his broader agenda and even Dem chances in 2010. It seems unlikely that this is a factor weighing on his decision, but if nothing else, it certainly raises the stakes a bit more.
********************************************
Update: Here’s the latest on Obama’s thinking. In the wake of the news that the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan has reservations about deploying more troops, he’s considering a low end option of about 10,000 to 15,000, with most in a training role. But he’s also considering as many as 30,000 or 40,000.
According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a central focus of Obama is “how do we signal resolve, and at the same time signal to the Afghans, as well as the American people, that this is not an open-ended commitment?”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
“It seems unlikely that this is a factor weighing on his decision.”
I certainly hope not. Obama has to think about national security and, unfortunately, that might be at odds with popular opinion.
sbj, what I found interesting about Bowers’ point is that he’s also arguing that lives can be impacted by the failure of the rest of his agenda
I’m not crazy about this piece, Greg.
The news last night that Obama tossed out all 4 options combined with the news that Eikenberry OPPOSES a troop increase had me soooo psyched last night.
WHERE IS IT?
It’s almost like you wrote this piece two days ago and missed the breaking news.
This is probably the most absurd post I’ve seen on this site. With the reporting in the last 24 hours about the Afghanistan ambassidor urging no troop commitments without some plan for their eventual withdrawl and the AP saying Obama has rejected all options on the table for not having a time line, one would like to see mention of such things in this fluff peace about how much dems pee their pants whn it comes to national security. The CiC has shown little regard for either his own party’s waffling in the face of Villager pressure to “get on with it”, nor has he put up with complaints about “dithering”. To say this is a disappointing post is an understatement.
I’m honestly not following your point, Ethan. Both those pieces were linked in this morning’s roundup. There hasn’t been any more info since then, to my knowledge.
Apologies for typos, this is from my iPhone.
Greg, the problem is that this piece, as a stand alone piece of reporting, makes no mention of the equally relevent info that directly contridicts the gist of what you are saying here. You are leading the story instead of reporting it.
Greg, don’t you think those major pieces of news have bearing on this story? I agree entirely with Paul W (cept I wouldn’t quite call it absurd)…
Don’t feel bad, TPM is ignoring it too. But they do mostly birther-tea party reactionism now, not investigative journalism, so…
@Greg: “sbj, what I found interesting about Bowers’ point is that he’s also arguing that lives can be impacted by the failure of the rest of his agenda.”
I’ll have to read Bowers’ post then!
But regarding h/c reform and the rest of the agenda – it’s the job of Congress to pass that type of legislation – and it’s the job of the President to keep the homeland safe. It may be true that Obama’s agenda will be impacted – I’m not sure – but the legislative body can do their part as well. Less concern about politics and more about just doing the right thing, please.
Paul W., there’s no evidence that I can find that Obama isn’t still considering sending 30 K more troops. Do you really believe this is no longer on the table?
Yes, I’m reacting strongly because this seems to be, as Ethan said, written two days ago. I would have thought today would have been spent digging into and confirming the pretty drastic shift the AP broke last night. I only bash because I love you and the site Greg, and this seems to be below your usually excellent standards.
Obama’s rejection of all the options so far is great news. However, I do not trust Bowers reporting very much or OpenLeft. Bowers listed Lieberman as a senator who was going to vote for cloture on the health care bill along with a few others. It makes me wonder who their sources are on the Hill.
“I would have thought today would have been spent digging into and confirming the pretty drastic shift the AP broke last night.”
I don’t think last nite was a “pretty drastic shift” at all. He rejected the options because they lacked a clear exit strategy (by all accounts). That doesn’t mean that he has rejected the idea of a troop increase or even a long term commitment. I think the admin is trying to generate some goodwill amongst the hard core progressives before Obama eventually delivers the “bad news” – more troops there for a long time because our security depends on it.
A huge problem I have with this endless discussion about troop levels is that it completely ignores what the heck troops will be doing there. As Steve Benen said the other day, McCrystal also had a request for 85,000 more troops. Let’s talk about what the WH goals are in the coming strategy and not focus purely on troop levels. We had 100s of thousands mores troops in Vietnam but no strategy, calling for a time line to turn over the nation to Afghans is a shift in the strategies we have been hearing about and I think we need to pay attention to that distinction.
Please see the update I added. thanks
The update I did has more about the shift. I’m not convinced the shift is necessarily that dramatic. We’ll only know once he’s made his final decision.
sbj has it exactly backwards as usual. It won’t be “bad news” at all if Presidential leadership demanded that the options be revised to include a more comprehensive strategy. It is simple. Do what needs to be done on the ground based on facts on the ground, and do so with a contingency-determined exit strategy. I want troops out. But I want the USA to do the right thing even more. And if that means a civilian surge and a troop-training surge with a brigade or two of combat troops, and a long-term exit strategy, I’m all for it.
Sbj and Greg are both right, troop level discussion may not have changed much but the number one question I see when browsing left leaning sites is ” why are we there?” if the prez were to put a timeline on the table and say a troop escalation now is a means to that end then a large number of skeptical Obama voters would likely fall in line. Anecdotal evidence when discussing last nights news seems to support that line of thinking. I’m going to take a deep breath now, but I think shifting the discussion about where the rub is that is holding back the president’s decision is an important thing to consider when talking about Afghanistan.
hey, at least my site is not covered with stuff about Bachmann and Palin
And by “long-term” I mean begin phased, conditions-based withdrawal in under 2 yrs.
“And by “long-term” I mean begin phased, conditions-based withdrawal in under 2 yrs.”
That’s imho of course
“hey, at least my site is not covered with stuff about Bachmann and Palin”
Thank God. I’d be outta here so fast.
Greg, nice. Let’s kill the goose before it even lays the goddamned egg. How about waiting till the CIC makes his decision known ? You don’t have to prefabricate “news” (I had a rhyming word) in order to a have post.
heh. Obama considering anywhere from 10k to 40k troops should please the right wingers.
Their heads must be exploding right now because they are waiting to attack him from all sides regardless of what he chooses.
And I guess Gates is pissed about the leaks saying “Everybody ought to shut up.”
Like I mentioned this morning, these leaks are outrageous. I couldn’t even imagine trying to sway my companies decision by leaking information to the press.
In what work environment do these people think this kind of behavior is O.K.?
By the way, I think Dems have their heads in the sand about the condition of the base right now and the long term impact it could have. I see nothing wrong with talking about the risk of alienating the base Dems are running. Seems important.
Gee, Greg. You ‘concern’ is truly noted.
Greg, I think the point is that the situation is too fluid to gauge long-term impacts.
OT:
Jobless Claims Fall in Latest Week
The U.S. Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday that initial claims for jobless benefits fell by 12,000 to 502,000 in the week ended Nov. 7. That is the lowest level since Jan. 3. The previous week’s level was revised to 514,000 from 512,000.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a decrease of just 2,000 claims to 510,000.
Total claims lasting more than one week, meanwhile, also declined.
The four-week moving average of new claims, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, fell by 4,500 to 519,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 524,250. That is the lowest level since Nov 2008.
Initial claims still remain at a fairly high level, suggesting the job market has some way to go before it recovers. But some economists see positive signs in the recent decreases in the four-week-moving average, and Thursday’s larger than expected decrease in initial claims also may suggest an improvement in labor conditions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125803189109445199.html
“if the prez were to put a timeline on the table and say a troop escalation now is a means to that end then a large number of skeptical Obama voters would likely fall in line.”
See Ethan.
amk — yeah, I’m a big GOP hack concern troll.
I think Andrew Sullivan just made a post that gets at what I am trying to say here, with the following paragraph being the most important:
What strikes me about this is the enormous self-confidence this reveals. Here is a young president, prepared to allow himself to be portrayed as “weak” or “dithering” in the slow and meticulous arrival at public policy. He is trusting the reality to help expose what we need to do. He is allowing the debate – however messy and confusing and emotional – to take its time and reveal the real choices in front of us. This is politically risky, of course. Those who treat politics as a contact-sport, whose insistence is on the “game” of who wins which news cycle, or who can spin each moment in a political storm as a harbinger of whatever, will pounce and shriek and try to bounce the president into a decision. And those who believe that what matters in war is charging ahead regardless at all times will also grandstand against the president’s insistence on prudence.
Ethan, estimates are that once the claims hit the high 400’s we’ll start seeing job growth.
Tena, not sure if you’re around. But yesterday there was some discussion on the Stupak Amendment. I had asked if this was going to be limited to federal funds of insurance which will be accepted into the pool. I think many on here believed this to be so.
Someone thinks this might also affect employer based insurance since the Govn’t subsidizes them also with how the language is structured.
Yes, Greg. Living in the 24/7 news bubble can make one act like that. I’m really, really ‘concerned’ for you. ;0
I actually think that most Democrats will accept a troop increase if there is a PLAN to get out of Afghanistan. If Obama has an end game I think that MOST of America will support Obama.
I would hope so Maritza but something tells me there is at a minimum, 25% of the Democratic party that wants a pull out no matter what. They aren’t willing to accept we need to keep pressure on al-Qaeda from the west in coordination with Pakistan, which is probably much more coordinated than anyone is aware of. I mean heck, Pakistan is using our drones, hasn’t attacked our troops which are no doubtingly staging attacks over the border. Sure, publicly they denounce the drone attacks we stage but I don’t hear of them shooting them out of the air. We aren’t very popular with their public right now but we are needed both financially and strategically if they stand any chance of minimalizing al-Qaeda and the Talibans footprint in Afghanistan’s Swat Valley which Pakistan recently cleared partially and Waziristan region which remains their stronghold.
Oh, right, Obama doesn’t practice politics as a “contact sport” and doesn’t do spin. He’s the One above it all, serene and perfect in his wisdom and prudence, each day unfolding according to plan, while the mere mortals yap beneth him.
Please. No one outside the true believer set believes this stuff. Stop idolizing.
“What strikes me about this is the enormous self-confidence this reveals.”
What is striking is that Democrats have “enormous self-confidence,” while Republicans can only have enormous “arrogance” and egos. God forbid a Republican President believe he is President and show self-confidence.
Paul W, thank you, that does indeed nail it imho.
I think the reason he is able to reach this status is because he is — perhaps more than any recent President — able to sense his place in history. I think it will be written that he is as pragmatic and bold as he is thoughtful and deliberative. Excellent traits for a transformational leader, of course.
qb – projecting much ?
OT, who didn’t see this coming (except the idiot GOP):
…because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims.
The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts.
Thirty Senate Republicans voted against the amendment, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, liberal commentators and state Democratic Party chairs have been merciless.
[...]
Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a “no” vote on the amendment. And several aides said that Republicans are engaged in an internal blame game about why they agreed to a roll-call vote on the measure, rather than a simple voice vote that would have allowed the opposing senators to duck criticism.
If that was a miscalculation, the DSCC is only too happy to take full advantage of it. It has circulated a Web video that used a clip from Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show to target three senators who face reelection in 2010: Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Source: Politico
Good Lord – Obama’s DoD opposed the Franken amendment as written.
And then who are those people going to vote for, Greg? Republicans?
I don’t think so.
“Good Lord – Obama’s DoD opposed the Franken amendment as written.”
O good lord indeed – what, you didn’t know Obama was really in favor of rape?
God you’re silly.
I love how the DSCC is going after these guys. Here’s an article I found that discusses the ongoing civil war within the GOP, Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Express. I have to think they’re fragmenting too much to be taken seriously by any true conservatives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/tea-party-movement-comes_n_355445.html
“And then who are those people going to vote for, Greg?”
I think Greg’s point is that they aren’t going to vote for anybody.
@tena:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/why-the-dod-and-the-white-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php
This is kind of a big deal:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/maker-of-new-anti-reform-scare-ad-targeting-seniors-also-made-willie-horton-spot/
“I think Greg’s point is that they aren’t going to vote for anybody.”
well that about as much sense.
there are two choices and only two that are viable. So if the Democrats get sulky and don’t vote, we’ll end up with the Repugs back in charge.
I’m not prepared to see that happen and I don’t think the rest of the Democrats are either.
QB your posts are becoming whiny and pathetic. Until you accept the fact that your side had 8 years..the first half of which included Congress as well and you guys screwed the pooch like nobody else in history…save for perhaps for Hoover…who with the aid of the two repubs ahead of him Coolidge and Harding gave us the notorious “Gilded Age” and consequently the “Great Depression”. Bush was beyond an abysmal failure..two wars..Brownie and Katrina…the worst public image the U.S. has EVER had abroad…time does not permit all the actual fups Bush unleashed on this nation…can you say Cheney..torture? It’s just endless. And so QB when you continues to spout non sequitors like…”What is striking is that Democrats have “enormous self-confidence,” while Republicans can only have enormous “arrogance” and egos. God forbid a Republican President believe he is President and show self-confidence.” you sound like a petulant whiny child…perhaps you should switch your name to Pee Wee Herman…”I know you are so what am I?”
Your side was a disaster…accept it..admit it…and then join the rest of us as we try to get over it!!!
“Your side was a disaster…accept it..admit it…and then join the rest of us as we try to get over it!”
Word straight mofoing up!
rukidding = it’s less time consuming and easier if you just ask one of the trolls to tell you one thing Bush and the Repugs did right.
Trying to list all the wrong would take 8 years.
Back to Afghanistan…NOBODY on this blog has yet to answer the questions raised by Matthew Hoh’s letter. How about you SBJ? Toss in Ambassador’s Eikenberry’s recommendation and there is NO RATIONAL REASON to remain in Afghanistan!!!
Now add in the HYPOCRITICAL repubs and their tea bagging friends caterwauling about what providing decent health care will cost us..and all the **** about the deficit…Is there NO other conservative besides Ron Paul who is consistent with their fiscal ideas.
Get the boys and girls out NOW!!!
1.) We haven’t stopped a terrorist attack in from Afghanistan..but rather with good police work here at home!
2.) According to the Repubs we are BROKE! We can’t afford it! 65Billion a month and rising!
3.) And yes it is immoral to be killing people in THEIR OWN homes because of our paranoia! How would we feel if another nation invaded us to protect us? It is immoral to even consider the cost of a basic necessity of life such as health care while pissing money away endlessly on foreign military adventures!
AND LAST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY…AMERICAN LIVES ARE SACRED…IF YOU’RE REALLY A PATRIOT STOP SACRIFICING OUR WONDERFUL SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN!
@kidding: You want me to respond to Hoh’s letter? Why would I do that?
@sbj: Perhaps I am mistaken…but I thought from the tenor and content of your posts you were for keeping the troops the in Afghanistan and following McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more. If you are not then I stand corrected and you have my apology.
If you are…I’m trying to understand what twisted logic could have brought you to that conclusion…answering Hoh’s very cogent points would have been a start.
@rukidding: It’s pointless to discuss this with you. My position has been clearly laid out. Hoh, I think, might be a media ‘ho.
I hope that was a joke sbj.
“I hope that was a joke sbj.”
The part about Hoh? Yes, but it might be offensive. I apologize. (You recall the website?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Whores_Online
Okay, I can actually take a joke, just checking.
ruk,
sjb had the right response to you — it is pointless to discuss anything with you, as I know from experience. As your rant shows yet again, you have no concept of the difference between your opinion and fact. You can spout as many times as you want that “your side screwed the pooch” and “Republicans caused the Depression.” You are ignorant. If your life depended on explaining what Hoover did to cause the Depression, I’m sure you would fail every time, because you really don’t know anything but rhetoric and liberal nostrums and dogma. It’s like you learned the catechism but without any comprehension.
That’s all I have to say to you, except that you obviously don’t know what a non sequitur is, either. That was quite funny how you just used the term.
“qb – projecting much ?”
No, you?
I am disappointed you didn’t call me a name preceded by “fvcking” though. First time, I think.
REPUBLICAN’S SEVEN YEARS OF FAILURES IN AFGHANISTAN ended up leaving the place a mess.
By 2008, while Republican Bush was still in office, the Taliban were resurgent and had metastasized into Pakistan.
Why is Afghanistan such a mess? Because Republican Bush lied US into the Iraq War and even while Republican Bush did NOT provide enough troops or resource in his Iraq War Lie, it was Afghanistan that got the really short straw.
Republican Bush basically abandoned Afghanistan and basically abandoned the American troops there.
Cleaning up Republican Bush’s Afghanistan failure may only be possible by withdrawing and re-focusing on specific, definable counterterrorism operations.