POLL: Afghanistan War - How will Obama handle it?

[Lemon law]

Nato has something on the order of 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now and needs at least a half million more to have a chance to win a conventional occupation.

Therefore we must face three facts.

(1) Unless Obama goes all in and arm twists the rest of Nato to go all in, ain't no way we will ever have the troops needed to win in Afghanistan. All we can do is deny the Taliban an outright win.

(2) The more military force we use, then more we lose the peace and alienate the Afghan people. Besides, our enemy number one in Afghanistan is the corruption of the Afghan government, or maybe better put, the greatest asset of the Taliban.

(3) We bit off more than we can chew at one time in Afghanistan, we have to either grow a bigger mouth by putting in more troops than we have, or as the Muslims put it, we must bring the mountain to Mohammad because the mountain will not come to Mohammad. By simply deciding Nato can win in a much smaller hunk of Afghanistan while temporarily ceding the rest of Afghanistan to the Taliban and all the wondrous attractions of the 4'th century. Meanwhile, in the smaller part of Afghanistan, Nato can have enough troops to establish absolute security, root out Afghan government corruption and drug money, provide the good Governance and justice that has been lacking, while developing roads, schools, and really flood the zone with the benefits of modern technology. And once that small area is secured, Nato can build outward.

While the rest of the Afghan people can look from outside, and hope that those benefits will soon come to them. As even the Taliban may be rushing to join up.

 

[bamacre]

Let me get this straight. We are going to send tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan to help prop up an undemocratic government that obviously stole an election, and borrow more money to do it?

Yeah, that makes sense. If Bush were still president.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Let me get this straight. We are going to send tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan to help prop up an undemocratic government that obviously stole an election, and borrow more money to do it?

Yeah, that makes sense. If Bush were still president.

bush is no longer president.

a clean slate must be granted for the new group to make mistakes without learning form the past.
Even if what they are doing contradicts what they stated they would do when they were trying to impress the voters with all these unattainable promises.

The voters got what they asked for.

 

[DesiPower]

Get our of there while we still can, retreat and strengthen the base. cant afford it anymore, will bankrupt the nation

 

[Fern]

I don't know what he's going to do, heck I don't think he knows what he's going to do (in spite of earlier announcing a clear vision).

None of his options seem popular politically. Which is the least worse?

For the longest time the "Left" has declared Afg the only legit war and the one worth fighting. Obama campaigned on it and nothing in Afg of significance has changed. McChrystal was hand-picked by Obama to run the war in Afg, how can he repudiate McCystal without coming under criticism?

IDK, but so far I haven't heard that our allies there want to abandon the effort etc. Can he let them down?

Fern

 

[duragezic]

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't know what he's going to do, heck I don't think he knows what he's going to do (in spite of earlier announcing a clear vision).

None of his options seem popular politically. Which is the least worse?

For the longest time the "Left" has declared Afg the only legit war and the one worth fighting. Obama campaigned on it and nothing in Afg of significance has changed. McChrystal was hand-picked by Obama to run the war in Afg, how can he repudiate McCystal without coming under criticism?

IDK, but so far I haven't heard that our allies there want to abandon the effort etc. Can he let them down?

Fern

The allies might gladly step away if there wasn't US pressure to keep them there. The war has gotten unpopular here; I think it's been very unpopular in Europe for a while.

Normally I'd support being there and getting the job done but I just don't know anymore. It would be a shame if we left soon and lost progress made so far.

What I do like about Obama is he takes the time to make an informed opinion. So even if his decision isn't what I'd most like to see, I think I can at least know that he made the decision after very careful consideration from the various experts.

I hate where we are today but I think a temporary surge as well as continued focus on increasing the ANA/ANP as well as local tribes standing up against extremists (similar to Sons of Iraq).

 

[Lemon law]

I cannot support the duragezic statement of, " Normally I'd support being there and getting the job done but I just don't know anymore. It would be a shame if we left soon and lost progress made so far."

Simply because there is no progress so far.

Nor is it possible to get any arms around the concept that the Afghan people care who is the Prez of the USA, if Obama uses GWB tactics he will get GWB results.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Ever been to New York? LA? Washington DC? Not enough parking space.

Now if we made Afghanistan into a glass parking lot and had shuttle service, we could alleviate this issue.

HaHa ..... I thought you were going to say send enough troops over there and the parking problem would be solved.

 

[IGBT]

more boots on the ground won't help. rules of engagement need to change if success is the goal.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Does anyone else have concerns over the public will to keep troops in Afghanistan, especially with an increased footprint? With the increase we'll be hovering around 112,000 troops. How long do we need them in Afghanistan and how long can we keep them in Afghanistan? When exactly do we wear out our welcome and do we do it as allies or occupiers?

Afghanistan is really nothing resembling a nation. It is disjointed, scattershot and it's central government does not control the more rural and remote regions. Creating infrastructure and facilities for an entire nation will take years, I've read ranges from ten to forty. Water, roads, schools, basic government - they'll need everything.

Being almost a decade into this as-is I can't see much support for Afghanistan going forward unless their is resounding success within the first two-to-five years - the former will be the ten year mark. It won't mean much in terms of Obama's still-fledgling plan only just being executed but it's still symbolic. We can hit reset on the strategy but we can't hit reset on the clock. Ten years is too long for a war we're not winning.

I think at some point we might have to reconsider what kind of threat Al Qaeda is and what sort of attention it deserves but if it comes too late will anyone care for another reassessment of and series of redeployments to Afghanistan? Will such a plan incur pushback from the American people? How about the Afghani people?

Gallup, February 19
Views on Keeping Troops in Afghanistan vs. Setting a Timetable for Withdrawal
48%
Keep troops until situation improves

31%
Favor timeline of two years or less

12%
Favorable timeline or two years or more

That I know, the question has not been re-sampled but I thought I'd throw it in.

Gallup, February 19
Thinking now about U.S. military action in Afghanistan that began in October 2001, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, or not?
66%
No

30%
Yes

Gallup, July 16
??%
No (Not shown...)

36%
Yes

Gallup, September 4
61%
No

37%
Yes

There's slowly growing resentment over the war, does troop increases, in light of the fact that the average citizen doesn't know about the plan, aggrevate this?

Politico, September 22
Should more U.S. troops be sent to Afghanistan?
Yes : 4305 (32%)
No : 8047 (58%)
I'm not sure. : 1318 (10%)
Total Votes: 13670

Internet poll, I believe. I hear Politico is Republican leaning, if that means anything to you. Just something I wanted to add because I happened to have the results.

ABC-Washington Post
Do you think the U.S. must win the war in Afghanistan in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, or do you think the war on terrorism can be a success without the U.S. winning the war in Afghanistan?
48%
Must Win

45%
Can succeed without:

7%
No opinion

Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?
42%
Decreased

28%
Kept same

26%
Increased

4%
No opinion

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, or not?
51%
Not worth it

46%
Worth it

3%
No opinion

The newest (and most damning) poll to be released and, I believe, the only one taken after grumblings of troop increases emerged. Honestly, I'd take a Gallup result over this because I can judge over time using the past as reference but it will do. People who believe victory is necessary in Afghanistan for success in the War on Terror and those who oppose that view are almost tied. A large majority feel troop levels need to go down or stay leveled, anything but increase. These "facts" (given poll results) are probably due to the fact that most respondents didn't even think the war is worth fighting anymore. I'm looking forward to Gallup results when I see them.

:moon:

 

[BarrySotero]

If Obama sends more troops they won't be allowed to do anything. They can't call in air or artillery support now if any civilians real or imagined are around. They cant use mines which are key in that area. The 10 guys killed the other day were killed by enemy coming from Mosque - which of course is PC area. With Obama your buggered if you add troops or if you don't.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
If Obama sends more troops they won't be allowed to do anything. They can't call in air or artillery support now if any civilians real or imagined are around. They cant use mines which are key in that area. The 10 guys killed the other day were killed by enemy coming from Mosque - which of course is PC area. With Obama your buggered if you add troops or if you don't.

the general made these decisions, not the president. There was an article in Time (shitty magazine, i know) about it/him.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Elias824
Gotta build up to build down.

Since taking over as President, Obama has more than doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan...

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Go All In or All Out... anything in between would be a crime against our soldiers and the people of the region.

So...George W. Bush committed eight years worth of crimes against our soldiers and Marines and the people of Afghanistan?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
If Obama sends more troops they won't be allowed to do anything. They can't call in air or artillery support now if any civilians real or imagined are around. They cant use mines which are key in that area. The 10 guys killed the other day were killed by enemy coming from Mosque - which of course is PC area. With Obama your buggered if you add troops or if you don't.

You've got to be kidding. It's Gen. McChrystal that has taken the toughest stance on not using heavy firepower because of the civilian casualties.

That's partly why he's requesting so many more troops -- because it's tougher to hold giant chunks of land when you want to be much more careful about collateral damage.