Poll: Contra Cheney, Big Majority Backs Obama’s “Dithering” On Afghanistan
The GOP strategy on Afghanistan has been to frame President Obama’s choice as a decision over whether or not to go along with his commanders’ desire for an expanded counterinsurgency, and the new NBC/WSJ poll suggests it may be bearing some fruit.
But first, I wanted to flag some amusing numbers from the internals that make Dick Cheney’s claim that Obama is “dithering” for too long over what to do look pretty silly:
As you may know, the Obama administration has said it will not make a firm decision about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan until after that country’s upcoming runoff election when the president of Afghanistan will be determined and the political situation in that country is clearer. Do you support or oppose this decision?
Support 58%
Oppose 37%
Fifty-eight percent support Obama’s postponement of a decision. Looks like a big majority is just fine with his “dithering.”
That said, the broader GOP strategy may be moving the numbers a bit. Forty-seven percent support a troop increase, up from last month and higher than the 43% who oppose it. And 62% have more confidence in the generals to determine the way forward, while only 25% have more confidence in the President and his Secretary of Defense.
But, shockingly, the public adamantly doesn’t want Obama to rush this extremely complex and momentous decision.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I have been screaming on this blog for a month now about the futility of Afghanistan and now some backing from somebody who should know…in fact he’s one of Bilgey’s jarheads…yes an actual Marine Iraq Vet and diplomatic veteran in Afghanistan.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/the_logical_core_of_matthew_ho.php
“”I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights that the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries.”
I have been making these points for several weeks and NOBODY…no bloggers…I’ve yet to read of anybody besides Hoh…perhaps Biden…has really addressed Hoh’s point about this not being a geographical problem or what the hell we are accomplishing in Afghanistan…can someone answer Hoh’s points with specificity?
This recent wave of horrible violence reminds me of the TET offensive on a smaller scale.
GET THE MEN AND WOMEN OUT NOW!!!! Or come up with a REAL reason we are sacrificing precious American’s…hurting their families….ohhh yeah…65 billion a month when we are DITHERING over our friends and neighbors healthcare.
It’s a mess and very complicated, Clinton is in Pakistan right now and a devastating car bomb Wed. morning killin at least 80 probably in retaliation of the offensive in Waziristan.
“PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A huge car bomb tore through a congested market of narrow alleys and crowded stalls in Peshawar’s old town on Wednesday, killing more than 80 people, many of them women, while 160 more were injured, many of them seriously, local authorities said.”
“The explosion came about three hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, a 90 minute drive away, underscoring the challenges facing American policy in a nation that has become skeptical of Washington’s long-term commitment.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/asia/29pstan.html?_r=2&hp
Not to be redundant but for those who haven’t had a chance to actually read the letter from a man who in my opinion is a true American Hero…for his service in both Iraq and Afghanistan and for doing what has become a very rare thing in American politics..resigning over principle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447
I agree with you RUK, but I don’t see us leaving any time soon. Did you read about the CIA possibly having dealings with Karzai’s brother the big drug dealer over the last 8 years?
They offered Hoh a job in DC which he accepted at first, probably thinking he could make a difference from here, but after a week he even turned that down.
@Imsinca..I briefly heard about that last night as breaking in the NY Times today. When will we ever learn? I’m really growing weary of watching us repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again…not to be overly maudlin, hokey, or whatever…but I’m getting to old for all of this and I’m genuinely DESPERATE for some “change I can believe in”. In military terms Afghanistan policy is FUBAR!!!!
It’s an interesting letter and certainly makes points worthy of attention. It also contains its share of oversimplifications and questionable reasoning — such as the comparison to WWWI, as if the European and Pacific campaigns were models of foolproof planning and preparation. Anyone with moderate familiarity with the subject knows they were not. They were also plagued by failures of planning, intelligence, supply, etc., that were often tragic and sometimes disastrous.
In each war, though, people tend to idealize other “better” wars and how they were fought and won, when the truth is that wars are typically won by the side that best manages disaster and planning failures and manages to persevere to the end. Post-Vietnam, this leads to the routine comparison to that war in contrast to the “good” war, WWII. It’s just not that simple.
Obama might be lucky here that people’s memories are short and their knowledge limited. Otherwise, he would have a harder time explaining his sudden change from insisting that Afghanistan is a war of necessity.
Someone pointed out at dkos that the ratio of american soldiers to taliban in Afghanistan was something like 14 to 1. And aq is nowhere to be found in there too. So, why does mcchrystal want more soldiers ?
” So, why does mcchrystal want more soldiers ?”
Bigger question for me is why Cheney thinks anyone is going to listen to him and agree.
Tena – dick the darth. Who gives a shite about this POS ? But that mcchrystal SOB is the one where the repugs will hang their fvcking “national security” hat on and the MF’er has been undermining his CIC from day one. Hope Obama refuses his stupid request and the MF’er is forced to quit. And where is “surge supervisor” petraeus on this ?
“Hope Obama refuses his stupid request and the MF’er is forced to quit. And where is “surge supervisor” petraeus on this ?”
I’ve been calling for McChrystal to get fired since he leaked all over the place. I don’t trust him and I wish Obama would fire him.
There’s a very simple question that needs to be answered before committing more troops. Are we backing a legitimately elected regime or propping up yet another corrupt one? The people who accuse Obama of ‘dithering’ are predictably unconcerned about the distinction. Fortunately, they are not currently in charge.
Obama’s “dithering” is better than rushing into conflicts we don’t belong in. We’ve got a leader who’s charismatic and actually willing to think, and that’s something Conservatives are sorely lacking – a figure who’s willing to be moderate and mainstream, instead of radical and fringe. http://www.newsy.com/videos/time_for_conservatives_to_shine
Paul Dirks, there is a very simple answer to your simple question.
As of today, unless something changes soon, we are propping up a corrupt government.
Read the NYT article on Ahmed Wali Karzai, Hamid Karzai’s brother who is the heroin kingpin and the CIA’s “landlord” in Kabul.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html
Looks like the strategy will possibly be to protect the most populated and important areas while training Afghan security foreces to take over.
“Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision and has other options available to him, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed. The question of how much of the country should fall under the direct protection of American and NATO forces will be central to deciding how many troops will be sent.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper
How many of those people the numbers are moving actually have a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine serving in this area? I do, and I want the President to think long and hard about the ramifications of our actions there instead of just blindly throwing more at it.
And anyone swayed by the opinions of those who had “other priorities” and whose chicken-hawk decisions got us into this mess and have proved disastrous so far can go F-O, as far as I’m concerned.
This is why the Red Army, with a common border, to maintain a good supply route, got chewed up in Afghanistan.
It would be folly to not learn from what happened to them, and stick to having a small footprint there, for the sole purpose of launching strikes against Al-Qaeda camps and compounds in Pakistan or where ever they crop up.
Here is what we are up against. We can not level The Mountains, and we do not have roads to use.
………………………..
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932386,00.html?iid=tsmodule
Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009
Why Flying Choppers in Afghanistan Is So Deadly
By Mark Thompson / Washington
The 14 Americans who died in Afghanistan on Monday were a reminder that U.S. troops who die in Afghanistan are twice as likely to be killed in helicopter crashes as are their counterparts in Iraq. And the reasons for that discrepancy are not to be found in the country’s skies, but on the ground — the Taliban’s growing footprint has forced the U.S. to be far more reliant on moving troops and supplies by air. And the rugged terrain often makes helicopters the only option, even as the altitudes involved greatly increase the risks.
Afghanistan’s few roads are now increasingly monitored — and mined — by insurgents, meaning that many of the 180 U.S. outposts spread across the country can now only be reached by helicopters. “We don’t have freedom of movement on the ground,” a senior Army logistics officer says. “We’re resupplying between 30% and 40% of our forward operating bases by air because we just can’t get to them on the ground.” (See pictures of a U.S. Marine offensive in Afghanistan.)
That forces the U.S. military to rely on helicopters, not only to reach remote outposts, but also to carry out dangerous combat missions that thinly spread troops couldn’t do without the helicopter’s ability to hopscotch hundreds of miles. It was precisely such an antidrug mission that a twin-rotor Army MH-47 Chinook was flying when it went down in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including three civilians with the Drug Enforcement Administration. Earlier in the day, a Marine UH-1 Huey troop helicopter collided in midair with an A-1 Cobra helicopter gunship over southern Helmand province, killing four. U.S. officials said they don’t believe hostile fire caused either crash. The death toll could rise because some of the 28 people left injured by the crashes are in critical condition.
“Helicopters are not shot down in battle very much in either place [Iraq or Afghanistan],” says Brookings Institution defense analyst Michael O’Hanlon. He and his colleagues are keeping running tallies of U.S. fatalities in both theaters. While 5% of U.S. deaths in Iraq have been caused by helicopter crashes — 216 out of 4,348 — the total is 12% in Afghanistan — 101 of 866 — even before Monday’s losses. “The main issues [responsible for the higher rate of helicopter-crash casualties in Afghanistan] have to do with terrain, weather and of course frequency of use,” O’Hanlon says. (See pictures of Afghanistan’s dangerous Korengal Valley.)
The U.S. has over the past year doubled its number of helicopters based in Afghanistan to about 225, but troop numbers have risen even faster, making for a more acute chopper shortage. Helicopters are swift but delicate machines. The physics of flight make them inherently unstable, and therefore less reliable, than fixed-wing aircraft which generate their lift from stationary wings instead of egg-beater-like rotor blades. More critically, chopper pilots are commonly expected to fly in hot weather at high altitudes, where less-dense air offers them less control over their aircraft.
Air Force Captain Matthew Miller wrote about the challenges of flying in Afghanistan after returning from a four-month deployment there in 2007. His medevac unit, from Georgia’s Moody Air Force Base, had lost three helicopters and seven crew members in the two wars. Enemy fire had been a factor in none of the Afghan crashes. “In Iraq, helicopter pilots face a greater prospect of being shot at by ground fire,” Miller wrote. “In Afghanistan, the greatest threat is the terrain.” He described flying in Afghanistan as “‘graduate level’ piloting more challenging than cruising over the flatlands of Iraq. “It didn’t take long to feel the perils of mountainous flying in Afghanistan,” he added. “Between Iraq and Afghanistan, most helicopter pilots I’ve spoken to consider Afghanistan the more dangerous place to fly.”
How many of the 62% who have more confidence in the generals to determine the way forward are lining up to join the military to fight in Afghanistan?
There is a recruiting office a couple of blocks from my house and another one in the next surburb. Bothe are on my routes of travel so I pass by them several times a week.
Guess what?
There are no lines of strong red blooded Americans waiting to sign up.
Wonder why that is?
Sammy,
Exactly. Those Chicken Hawk War Mongers never change. They are always ferocious warriors with other people’s lives, Never their own.
Five Deferments Dick, comes to mind.
Of interest:
“US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN’s top investigator of such crimes said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091028/wl_afp/unpakistanafghanistanusmissilerights
SBJ is doing all he can to make sure that Al-Qaeda training camps and leader compounds in Pakistan are protected. He wants the US to stop striking at those who hit us on 9/11
“SBJ is doing all he can to make sure that Al-Qaeda training camps and leader compounds in Pakistan are protected.”
sbj and the UN!
Here is the way to phrase the question in the poll -
Gen. McCrystal, who as head of special operations is reported to have at least a half-dozen torture cells across the middle east where over 30 soldiers were disipled for abuse and also covered up the Pat Tillman death counceling Pres Bush on what to say so it was not a issue in the election is now in charge of troops numering 12 US soldiers to 1 Taliban and wants more troops and money. Do you support giving him the extra troops??
I bet the numbers would be dramaticly differant than this poll.
The UN my arse. SBJ loves to lie. He finds one guy who speculates on something, and SBJ turns it into being the official policy of the UN.
FUDmaster SBJ strikes again.
I began reading Kipling before the age of 10 [decades ago] … regarding his anecdotes and further study of what the Brits and Russians have experienced trying to subjugate Afghanistan [and the relative breadth of their methods], I am dubious regarding any strategy that sacrifices more American service personnel to this particular endeavor.
IMHO, leaving this country to itself, while stating that: a) any identified terrorist training camps will be “dealt with”; b) any terrorism that originates from their soil will be more harshly dealt with, holding the general leadership responsible … is a more workable solution that will result in fewer American casualties.
“And anyone swayed by the opinions of those who had “other priorities” and whose chicken-hawk decisions got us into this mess and have proved disastrous so far can go F-O, as far as I’m concerned.”
Wench is a hypocrite.