Country Split on Afghanistan Troop Buildup

Washington Post: Majority of Americans Says The Nation Lacks a Clear Strategy in the Country

(Washington Post)  This story was written by Dan Balz and Jon Cohen.

---

As President Obama and his war cabinet deliberate a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, Americans are evenly and deeply divided over whether he should send 40,000 more troops there, and public approval of the president's handling of the situation has tumbled, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has recommended the substantial increase in troop strength, and 47 percent of those polled favor the buildup, while 49 percent oppose it. Most on both sides hold their views "strongly." The survey also found that a large majority of Americans say the administration lacks a clear plan for dealing with the problems in Afghanistan.

The troop decision is one of the most complex and fateful strategic security choices of Obama's presidency. It also carries great political risk, whichever way he goes.

Ordering more U.S. forces to Afghanistan could open a rift with Obama's fellow Democrats, most of whom call the battle "not worth fighting" and adamantly oppose the idea. But the Republicans polled take diametrically opposed views on the war, and a decision not to accept the commander's recommendation probably would heighten their opposition to the president.

Adding to Obama's political predicament is that few support winnowing the mission in Afghanistan to a targeted focus on anti-U.S. elements, a position supported by some in the administration. Such a move could lessen the need for additional troops.

CBS News Special Report: Afghanistan

A day after Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed to a runoff election -- following an investigation by an international panel that found pervasive irregularities in the first round of voting -- the poll showed that two-thirds of the U.S. public also considers the election deeply flawed, with evidence of widespread fraud. That negative appraisal was generally consistent across party and ideological lines.

Obama has conducted a weeks-long review of his Afghanistan strategy, after implementing a new course in the spring that included sending more troops to battle al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that he expects a decision on a revised strategy and troops within weeks -- well before the results of the runoff election are certified.

As the administration's review continues, 57 percent of those polled approve of how Obama is carrying out his duties as commander in chief, but confidence in his leadership on the Afghan war has eroded since the spring. In previous polls, Obama received some of his highest ratings in relation to his dealings with Afghanistan, including 63 percent approval in April of his handling of the situation there. In the latest poll, 45 percent approve, down 10 percentage points in the past month alone, and 47 percent disapprove, an increase of 10 points. Nearly a third of those surveyed say they strongly disapprove.

The sharpest drop in support for Obama's work on Afghanistan has come among Republicans. In September, a bare majority of party members, 51 percent, approved of his performance on this issue; in the new poll, that support has plummeted to 22 percent, with 71 percent opposed.

The falloff has come as Republican leaders have escalated their criticism of Obama, accusing him of dithering and delay at a time when, they say, his military commander has expressed a sense of urgency about deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan and the need for more troops to win the war.

About two-thirds of Democrats give Obama positive marks on Afghanistan, essentially unchanged, but there has been some erosion among independents. Over the past month, they have gone from narrowly positive to narrowly negative in their appraisals.

Obama faces a possible loss of support among his Democratic base if he decides to order the kind of substantial troop increase McChrystal recommended. Just a third of Democrats favor sending about 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, with 61 percent opposed -- 51 percent strongly so.

The troop issue clearly exposes the partisan divide. The new poll found that more than two-thirds of all Republicans favor an increase, including 51 percent who strongly support McChrystal's recommendation.

Independents divide on the troop issue, with 47 percent favoring a substantial increase and 50 percent opposing it.

On the question of whether the administration has a clear strategy for Afghanistan, 63 percent of all Americans say it does not. More than eight in 10 Republicans, about two-thirds of independents and nearly half of Democrats think the administration does not have a clear plan.

When it comes to strategic priorities, the public places about equal emphasis on preventing the establishment of al-Qaeda bases and keeping the Taliban from returning to power, upping the ante on the impending troop decision.

Some administration officials argue that the United States should focus on fighting al-Qaeda and those elements of the Taliban that directly threaten U.S. security. A concentration on "anti-terrorism," as opposed to "anti-insurgent," as the rival camps have been described, would mitigate the force requirement to meet the objectives.

The new poll revealed little public interest in redefining the goal: Four in five Americans say U.S. policy should aim to prevent all elements of the Taliban from regaining power in Afghanistan, even if certain segments of the movement do not support terrorism against the United States. About two-thirds of those polled place a "high priority" on stopping the Taliban from taking over, and just as many prioritize guarding against new al-Qaeda camps. On these questions, there are minimal differences across party lines.

Most, regardless of political leanings, also say the United States should attack al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders across the border in Pakistan, although fewer call this a top priority. Fewer still prioritize economic development or working to establish a stable democracy in Afghanistan, although majorities say the United States should be doing these things.

Some critics of U.S. policy have warned that the nation could be headed toward a Vietnam War-like quagmire in Afghanistan. About a third in the Post-ABC News poll said they agreed with that assessment, while about three in five said they think that will be avoided. There is both partisan and ideological agreement on this question.

The poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone from Oct. 15 to 18 among a random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full poll is plus or minus three percentage points.

[rufusd123]

It would not serve any purpose to send any additional army personnel to Afghanistan.

Why does the US government drone drop millions of dollars worth of food packages instead of bombs that kill civilians as well as the targeted enemy viz. the taliban leaders. Along with the food packages they might consider airdropping battery operated CD players with Bollywood movies and sitcoms as well as those produced by Lollyhood (Lahore film industry.

[Ms_enza]

This is just not true...

With a projected 14 years maximum commitment, the careers of many, many flag officers will be made. There will be book deals and television interviews, CEO-ships with major defense contractors up for grabs, perhaps even a senatorial seat from Arizona and a chance to make even more money influence-peddling.

America -- land of the Military Industrial Complex -- "If we make it, you can buy it."

[excop1949]

As President Obama and his war cabinet deliberate a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, Americans are evenly and deeply divided over whether he should send 40,000 more troops there, and public approval of the president's handling of the situation has tumbled, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

WELCOME TO THE OVAL OFFICE, BARRY...THE CAMPAIGNING IS OVER.

[jefleshman]

I told myself I was not going to post on this one. But I cannot help it. The American citizen is just not informed. I cannot understand why people do not grasp this.

FACT: the 21000 "new" Pres. Obama ordered forces in 2009 are not reinforcements! They went to areas that had no presence or barely a footprint at all. They extended the Security footprint in areas the ANSF or ISAF could not get to because of the Troop the task ratio. Hmmmm and you wonder why there has been more fighting. We are in their freaking front yards now!


People. We have been an economy of force mission in Afghanistan for 9 years now (OCT 01-09) Just this year US forces were plused up from 27000 conventional forces to 48000 conventional forces, Of the 48000 about 1 and 6 give or take are a combat arms force. (Which equals 8000)!

look at the NATO ISAF ANSF break down: http://www.nato.int/ISAF/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf


You see all that empty space in the South/West and North? Can you say enemy safe haven? Can you say sanctuary? Can you say DUH?

We need more forces! How hard is it for the American citizen to do some research on their own, instead of relying on the media to spoon feed it to you; if they do, which most of the time they do not.

[Ms_enza]

Send 500,000 or pull them out. The nickle and dime approach will guarantee a loss.

Afghanistan -- a small army cannot conquer it, a large one will starve.

[mjlewis6]

Since the Taliban did not surrender (our Bush objective to remove them from power) and they have also resisted President Karzai's invitation for talks over the last two years, there is no POLITICAL DIVIDE to treat the Taliban and their fighters differently than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is strictly a Muslim extremist/terrorist group.

Maintain POW camps in-country/give jobs to those NOT fighting for reconstruction/ramp up military operations to clear and provide sufficient security in the area. No man with a gun may remain at liberty and no group of armed men may travel without an Afghan flag and officer.

The sufficient force level for a mountainous country may be calculated by the objectives sought. If you are seeking to win the conflict by negotiation, do it from strength. If you are seeking to end the conflict by eliminating one or more of the resistance groups, you have to ramp up. Since we are NOT in the know as to what is being sought...Criticize the result when you know what course is being sought.

[stuart-johns2]

And I stand with the majority of the nation and the President on this.

Obama already sent just over 20,000 more soldiers there. It has done little good. And of course it did'nt. They had no clear mission. They were caught in the cusp of re-defining the mission.

In the meantime, the country's government itself has become less stable because of corruption in its ranks.

So Obama and the DOD had to reassess and they did. One smart thing Obama has done recently. He could stand to get a few other smart things done as well.

[Biggest_Rick]

I wonder where you think the president stands? Because from your answer you don't seem to. He hasn't made any kind of final decision as to whether to follow the advice of his hand picked General or to do something else.

[Biggest_Rick]

My biggest concern is that as our president hesitates and hems and haws, that the enemy in Afghanistan becomes bolder in their attacks hoping that the president's indecision means weakness. If the president is indecisive and weak, perhaps if they kill more Americans they can get us to pull out and go home and let them win. If we send more troops we might be able to create more security and in the end lose fewer men. The greatest thing to dispirit the enemy is for the country to get behind the president and encourage him to do what it takes to stabilize the country.

[RedWings_ninety_one]

My personal opinion, send more troops in. We lost focus of Afghanistan when we were finishing "Bush's Daddy's War." We need all of the help that we can get in Afghanistan. Osama is still out there, we shouldn't rest until we get restitution for those lost on 9/11. Unless you don't care about 9/11, you too should want more troops.