Surely, we cannot go on supporting the war in Afghanistan when there is so much that is going wrong for the US/NATO occupation of the country, so many civilian and military casualties, so much poverty and so little progress for most of the Afghan people, so much corruption in the Afghan government and among US contractors, so much waste of US resources in a war that seems to chase its own tail.
---------------
Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seems discouraged about US prospects in Afghanistan, as reported as follows by Thom Shanker for the New York Times (Feb. 25, 2011).
“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates bluntly told an audience of West Point cadets on Friday that it would be unwise for the United States to ever fight another war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and that the chances of carrying out a change of government in that fashion again were slim.
‘In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,’ Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here.”
Secretary Gates did not mean to suggest that such wars are out of the question, but only that they should be based less on ground forces and more on “air and sea” power – and perhaps, implicitly, on pilotless drones and other mechanized warfare. Still, the Secretary and other leaders must be weighed down by the US devastation sheer price of it all caused by their policies in Iraq and now Afghanistan, with at the moment no end in sight. Where is the “democracy” and progress they promised, as all US leaders have done to justify invasions and wars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html
---------------
Ordinary Americans have caught this dark and dismal mood, as reflected in public opinion polls anyway. There is an overall trend in the news coverage of the Afghanistan War among people in the US who are questioned by pollsters. Those responding to unfavorable choices about the war are growing in number while the number of those responding favorably to US involvement in Afghanistan is falling. You can see the results of polls going back in some cases to 2007 or earlier at Polling Report.com. - Afghanistan. Support for the war in Afghanistan is declining among US citizens. Not good news for US Afghan policymakers. Here are examples of responses from two recent polls.
A CBS News Poll conducted from February 11-14, 2011 and based on 1,031 interviews found that 54 percent of the respondents indicate that the US “should…not be involved in Afghanistan now.” Only 37 percent agreed with the other option that “the US is doing the right thing. Nine percent were “unsure.” In the same CBS News Poll, the pattern held up in the responses to another question. The question, “What is your impression of how the war in Afghanistan is going for the US right now,” 55% chose “somewhat badly” (36%) or “very badly” (19%) compared to 36% who chose “somewhat well” (33%) or “very well” (3%).
A poll of 1,012 people by CNN/Opinion Research found 58 percent of the respondents who “oppose the US War in Afghanistan,” and a lesser percentage of 40% who “favor the US war in Afghanistan.”
---------------
A similar climate of opinion seems to hold among Afghans. The Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2010) titles an article “Afghanistan Poll: Afghans Lose Confidence in US and NATO Forces. The poll, “based on face-to-face interviews with a random sample of nearly 1,700 Afghan adults in all 34 of the country’s provinces,” was “conducted from Oct. 29-Nov. 13 [2010] by ABC News, the BBC, ARD German TV and the Washington Post.” Here are two relevant quotes from the article.
“Monday's survey also showed Afghans are losing confidence in the United States and NATO to provide security in their country, and they are more willing to see a negotiated settlement with the Taliban than they were last year.
“Just 36 percent of those polled expressed confidence in the U.S. and NATO to bring stability, down by 12 percentage points from last year and down by 31 percentage points since 2006. The survey also said 73 percent favor a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, up by 13 percentage points since 2007.”
---------------
While Secretary of Defense Gates seems demoralized, you can say that at least he seems guided by a certain rationality about the present and future of warfare. The same cannot be said of an outburst by General Patraeus. On Antiwar.com (Feb 21, 2001), Jason Ditz captures what happened, and it appears to be a sudden loss of concentration or an expression of pent-up rage on the part of the general. Who knows? The title of Ditz’ article is “Petraeus Accuses Afghan Parents of Burning Kids to Make US Look Bad. Here is some of what Ditz penned:
“One would think that the effort to downplay the killings of as many as 64 civilians, including a large number of children, would be enough to spark considerable anti-US outrage, but apparently Gen. David Petraeus saw an opportunity to make things even worse, and took it.
“In a closed door meeting aimed at explaining why they had killed so many civilians, Gen. Petraeus actually accused parents in the region of burning their own children in an attempt to raise the death count and make the US look bad.
[….]
“The US has a long history of making up ridiculous hypotheticals that might explain away massive civilian death tolls, including the May 2009 Farah Province massacre, in which the US initially claimed the Taliban had “pre-killed” a large number of civilians and stored them in buildings before tricking the US into bombing them, scattering the bodies. They later admitted the claim was entirely made up.
“….This appears, however, to be the first time they actually accused parents of killing their children just to make the US occupation look bad.”
---------------
The bad news onslaught is tragically reflected in other recent new items. Consider just five recent sources worth looking up.
#1 - The Independent. Uk posted on their website the following AP news item that “Afghan security worst for 10 years, says UN.” The post, from Feb 24, 2011, reports, ‘Security in the country is at its lowest level for a decade and two-fifths of the country is off-limits,’ according to “Robert Watkins, a Canadian diplomat and the UN's deputy special representative in Afghanistan.” Watkins is also quoted as saying, the occupation is‘at its lowest point since the departure of the Taliban" following the 2001 invasion.’”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-security-worst-for-10-years-says-un-2223699.html
---------------
#2 – C.J. Civers, Alissa J. Rubin, and Wesley Morgan write about “US Pulling Back in Afghan Valley It Called Vital to War,” Feb 24, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/asia/25afghanistan.html
---------------
#3 – Slobodan Lekic, “NATO: Afghan [troop] attrition remains stubbornly high,” Yahoo News, Feb 23, 2011.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_en/eu_nato_afghan_training
---------------
#4 – Emma Graham-Harrison, “NATO’s Afghan night raids come with high civilian cost.”
http://ca.reuters.com/articles/topNews/idCATRE71N15U20110224
---------------
#5 – John Donnelly, “Pentagon Contracts: No bid required,” Congress.org, Feb 15, 2011
http://www.congress.org/new/2011/02/15/pentagon_contracts_no_bids_required
Showing posts with label US public opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US public opinion. Show all posts
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Afghanistan in the first days of 2011 - bad news overwhelms good news
There are mixed results over the last two weeks, including the first days of the new year, regarding the US-dominated/NATO occupation and war in Afghanistan. There is some good news, but, sadly, the bad news remains greatly ascendant.
First the good news. Jason Ditz reports on Antiwar.com (12/30/10) that the newest CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that “63 percent of the American public opposed to the war, the largest opposition yet from the regular poll.” Another question posed by the pollsters finds that “56 percent of Americans believe the war is going either ‘moderately badly’ or ‘very badly.” Ditz notes that this poll was taken after the president’s December 16 speech on Afghanistan, indicating that Obama’s upbeat message did not resonate well with most of the American public.
While such poll findings may be momentarily uplifting for those of us who have opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan from the beginning, going back to 2001 or even before, public opinion does not much affect US Afghan policies. A positive note is that such polls may reflect a growing awareness among an increasing number of Americans that the war is too costly financially and much too injurious (or lethal) for American troops and their families. One implication is that there is a growing sentiment that we need to direct our attention to the serious domestic problems in America of unemployment and underemployment, the continuing housing crisis, a pressing need to channel more support to public education through college, the overall debt-ridden American government, economy, and society, research and technology on green energy, and so forth. On this score, Tom Engelhardt comments in one of the paragraphs from his much longer article on Antiwar.com, “The Urge to Surge,” January 4, 2011:
"The U.S. economy looks increasingly sclerotic; moneys for an aging and rotting infrastructure are long gone; state and city governments are laying off teachers, police, even firefighters; Americans are unemployed in near record numbers; global oil prices (for a country that has in no way begun to wean itself from its dependence on foreign oil) are ominously on the rise; and yet taxpayer money continues to pour into the military and into our foreign wars. It has recently been estimated, for instance, that after spending $11.6 billion in 2011 on the training, supply, and support of the Afghan army and police, the U.S. will continue to spend an average of $6.2 billion a year at least through 2015 (and undoubtedly into an unknown future) – and that’s but one expense in the estimated $120 billion to $160 billion a year being spent at present on the Afghan War, what can only be described as part of America’s war stimulus package abroad." (http://original/antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/04/the-urge-to-surge-4)
However, the increasingly plutocratic nature of the US political system, the power of the military-industrial complex, the foreign policy based on force as always a viable, if not preferred, option, the continuing and increasing dependence on foreign oil - all represent some of the dominant influences with respect to foreign policy generally and to Afghanistan specifically. Public opinion appears little more than a passing annoyance to the decision-makers, especially when there is yet no strong anti-Afghan war movement.
Among the other bad news items, Jason Ditz’s Antiwar.com column on January 6, 2011 offers the following example, reporting that “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has approved yet another escalation of the war in Afghanistan, this time approving another 1,400 Marines who are expected to be sent to Afghanistan within a matter of weeks.”
How many US troops are already in Afghanistan? According to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there were 90,000 US troops in Afghanistan near the end of 2010, along with 39,215 troops with allied countries, ranging from no troops from Jordan and Tonga to 9,500 troops from the UK. http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/Placeats/14DEC%202010%20Placemat.pdf
Other reports have indicated the US troop level closer to 100,000. With the additional 1,400 US troops, the total number now rises to 91,400 or to above 100,000.
The numbers don’t end there. There are an unknown number of CIA operatives and US Special Forces, plus US-connected contractors. Further, according to Wikipedia, there were in 2010 138,200 Afghan National Army troops and 120,500 Afghan National Police officers. There are regular reports that indicate many of the Afghan troops and police officers are not well trained, not reliable, and/or infiltrated by people who are sympathetic to the Taliban.
Despite the growing number of US and other troops and police in Afghanistan, the situation there appears to be getting worse. The Dailykos.com website quotes from Agence France-Presse, December 27, 2010, on two confidential UN maps showing “a clear deterioration in security in parts of Afghanistan.” Quoting Kieran Dwyer, “communications director of the UN mission in Afghanistan, “There are parts of the country that have become increasingly difficult to operate in during 2010 due to insecurity.” The article notes further, “Violence in the north has steadily worsened over the last two years despite the Taliban insurgency having its powerbase in the south.” (http://www.kailykos.com/story/2010/12/28/931769/-Open-thread-for-night-owls:-Insecurity-rises-in-Afghanistan
Juan Cole identifies the “top ten myths about Afghanistan,” including this one on the deteriorating security environment in the country. (“Top Ten Myths About Afghanistan,” Informed Comment, December 27, 2010.) First the myth, then the fact.
Myth: “There has been significant progress in tamping down the insurgency in Afghanistan.”
Fact: A recent National Intelligence Estimate by 16 intelligence agencies found no progress. It warned that large swathes of the country were at risk of falling to the Taliban and that they still had safe havens in Pakistan, with the Pakistani government complicit. The UN says there were over 6000 civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of 2010, a 20% increase over the same period in 2009. Also, 701 US and NATO troops have been killed this year, compared to 521 last year, a 25% increase. There were typically over 1000 insurgent attacks per month in Afghanistan this year, often twice as many per month as in 2009, recalling the guerrilla war in Iraq in 2005.
US Afghanistan policy has a pronounced surreal quality about it. Tom Engelhardt captures some of this when he compares the recent surge in US troops to how Soviet generals were thinking back in the 1980s about the future progress of their occupation. Both the Soviet generals and the US decision-makers are caught up in pipedreams, though with lots of destructive consequences. Engelhardt writes:
“As 2011 begins, what could be eerier than reading secret Soviet documents from the USSR’s Afghan debacle of the 1980s? It gives you chills to run across Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at a Politburo meeting in October 1985, almost six years after Soviet troops first flooded into Afghanistan, reading letters aloud to his colleagues from embittered Soviet citizens (‘The Politburo had made a mistake and must correct it as soon as possible – every day precious lives are lost’); or, in November 1986, insisting to those same colleagues that the Afghan war must be ended in a year, ‘at maximum, two.’ Yet, with the gut-wrenching sureness history offers, you can’t help but know that, even two years later, even with a strong desire to leave (which has yet to surface among the Washington elite a decade into our own Afghan adventure), imperial pride and fear of loss of ‘credibility’ would keep the Soviets fighting on to 1989.” (http://original/antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/04/the-urge-to-surge-4)
First the good news. Jason Ditz reports on Antiwar.com (12/30/10) that the newest CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that “63 percent of the American public opposed to the war, the largest opposition yet from the regular poll.” Another question posed by the pollsters finds that “56 percent of Americans believe the war is going either ‘moderately badly’ or ‘very badly.” Ditz notes that this poll was taken after the president’s December 16 speech on Afghanistan, indicating that Obama’s upbeat message did not resonate well with most of the American public.
While such poll findings may be momentarily uplifting for those of us who have opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan from the beginning, going back to 2001 or even before, public opinion does not much affect US Afghan policies. A positive note is that such polls may reflect a growing awareness among an increasing number of Americans that the war is too costly financially and much too injurious (or lethal) for American troops and their families. One implication is that there is a growing sentiment that we need to direct our attention to the serious domestic problems in America of unemployment and underemployment, the continuing housing crisis, a pressing need to channel more support to public education through college, the overall debt-ridden American government, economy, and society, research and technology on green energy, and so forth. On this score, Tom Engelhardt comments in one of the paragraphs from his much longer article on Antiwar.com, “The Urge to Surge,” January 4, 2011:
"The U.S. economy looks increasingly sclerotic; moneys for an aging and rotting infrastructure are long gone; state and city governments are laying off teachers, police, even firefighters; Americans are unemployed in near record numbers; global oil prices (for a country that has in no way begun to wean itself from its dependence on foreign oil) are ominously on the rise; and yet taxpayer money continues to pour into the military and into our foreign wars. It has recently been estimated, for instance, that after spending $11.6 billion in 2011 on the training, supply, and support of the Afghan army and police, the U.S. will continue to spend an average of $6.2 billion a year at least through 2015 (and undoubtedly into an unknown future) – and that’s but one expense in the estimated $120 billion to $160 billion a year being spent at present on the Afghan War, what can only be described as part of America’s war stimulus package abroad." (http://original/antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/04/the-urge-to-surge-4)
However, the increasingly plutocratic nature of the US political system, the power of the military-industrial complex, the foreign policy based on force as always a viable, if not preferred, option, the continuing and increasing dependence on foreign oil - all represent some of the dominant influences with respect to foreign policy generally and to Afghanistan specifically. Public opinion appears little more than a passing annoyance to the decision-makers, especially when there is yet no strong anti-Afghan war movement.
Among the other bad news items, Jason Ditz’s Antiwar.com column on January 6, 2011 offers the following example, reporting that “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has approved yet another escalation of the war in Afghanistan, this time approving another 1,400 Marines who are expected to be sent to Afghanistan within a matter of weeks.”
How many US troops are already in Afghanistan? According to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there were 90,000 US troops in Afghanistan near the end of 2010, along with 39,215 troops with allied countries, ranging from no troops from Jordan and Tonga to 9,500 troops from the UK. http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/Placeats/14DEC%202010%20Placemat.pdf
Other reports have indicated the US troop level closer to 100,000. With the additional 1,400 US troops, the total number now rises to 91,400 or to above 100,000.
The numbers don’t end there. There are an unknown number of CIA operatives and US Special Forces, plus US-connected contractors. Further, according to Wikipedia, there were in 2010 138,200 Afghan National Army troops and 120,500 Afghan National Police officers. There are regular reports that indicate many of the Afghan troops and police officers are not well trained, not reliable, and/or infiltrated by people who are sympathetic to the Taliban.
Despite the growing number of US and other troops and police in Afghanistan, the situation there appears to be getting worse. The Dailykos.com website quotes from Agence France-Presse, December 27, 2010, on two confidential UN maps showing “a clear deterioration in security in parts of Afghanistan.” Quoting Kieran Dwyer, “communications director of the UN mission in Afghanistan, “There are parts of the country that have become increasingly difficult to operate in during 2010 due to insecurity.” The article notes further, “Violence in the north has steadily worsened over the last two years despite the Taliban insurgency having its powerbase in the south.” (http://www.kailykos.com/story/2010/12/28/931769/-Open-thread-for-night-owls:-Insecurity-rises-in-Afghanistan
Juan Cole identifies the “top ten myths about Afghanistan,” including this one on the deteriorating security environment in the country. (“Top Ten Myths About Afghanistan,” Informed Comment, December 27, 2010.) First the myth, then the fact.
Myth: “There has been significant progress in tamping down the insurgency in Afghanistan.”
Fact: A recent National Intelligence Estimate by 16 intelligence agencies found no progress. It warned that large swathes of the country were at risk of falling to the Taliban and that they still had safe havens in Pakistan, with the Pakistani government complicit. The UN says there were over 6000 civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of 2010, a 20% increase over the same period in 2009. Also, 701 US and NATO troops have been killed this year, compared to 521 last year, a 25% increase. There were typically over 1000 insurgent attacks per month in Afghanistan this year, often twice as many per month as in 2009, recalling the guerrilla war in Iraq in 2005.
US Afghanistan policy has a pronounced surreal quality about it. Tom Engelhardt captures some of this when he compares the recent surge in US troops to how Soviet generals were thinking back in the 1980s about the future progress of their occupation. Both the Soviet generals and the US decision-makers are caught up in pipedreams, though with lots of destructive consequences. Engelhardt writes:
“As 2011 begins, what could be eerier than reading secret Soviet documents from the USSR’s Afghan debacle of the 1980s? It gives you chills to run across Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at a Politburo meeting in October 1985, almost six years after Soviet troops first flooded into Afghanistan, reading letters aloud to his colleagues from embittered Soviet citizens (‘The Politburo had made a mistake and must correct it as soon as possible – every day precious lives are lost’); or, in November 1986, insisting to those same colleagues that the Afghan war must be ended in a year, ‘at maximum, two.’ Yet, with the gut-wrenching sureness history offers, you can’t help but know that, even two years later, even with a strong desire to leave (which has yet to surface among the Washington elite a decade into our own Afghan adventure), imperial pride and fear of loss of ‘credibility’ would keep the Soviets fighting on to 1989.” (http://original/antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/04/the-urge-to-surge-4)
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Declining American support for Afghanistan war
The following public opinion poll results on American attitudes toward the Afghanistan war are included in a much longer chapter on the Wikipedia internet encyclopedia website at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/international-public-opinion-on-the-war-in-Afghanistan#2010.
The results on American attitudes, reported below, indicate that support for the Afghanistan war is declining. If this downward trend continues, perhaps President Obama may summon the courage to buck his chief military advisers and generals and bring American troops in robust numbers home beginning next summer. That's what Americans want.
July 2010 United States: The majority 58% of Americans want their troops withdrawn from the nine-year U.S. war in Afghanistan within the next one or two years. Only a minority 35% of Americans are willing to have U.S. troops stay longer than two years from now. One third, 33%, of Americans think large numbers of U.S. troops should be withdrawn in less than a year, another 23% think that should be done within one or two years, and 2% want an immediate withdrawal. The majority 54% of Americans want a timetable to be set for withdrawal from Afghanistan, while 41% do not. Only 26% of Americans think U.S. troops should remain for as long as it takes. The majority 62% of Americans think the war is going badly for the United States, up from 49% in May, while 31% still believe it is going well. The CBS News poll was conducted July 9–12, 2010.[15][16]
July 2010 United States: Support for the war in Afghanistan hit a new low again in the United States. The three-quarters majority of Americans, 76%, want to start withdrawing troops by next summer or sooner: 45% call Obama's plan to start withdrawing troops by next summer "about right", and an additional 31% call for the withdrawal to start even sooner. Only 18% think the withdrawal should start later. The majority 53% of Americans think the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting, with the plurality 38% of Americans "strongly" feeling so. Only 43% of Americans think the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, down sharply since the end of the previous year, and the lowest since the question was asked in February 2007. The plurality 44% of Americans think the war has not contributed to their country's long-term security, 28% thought had "somewhat", and 25% thought it had to a "great deal". The ABC News / Washington Post poll was conducted July 7–11, 2010.[16][17]
The results on American attitudes, reported below, indicate that support for the Afghanistan war is declining. If this downward trend continues, perhaps President Obama may summon the courage to buck his chief military advisers and generals and bring American troops in robust numbers home beginning next summer. That's what Americans want.
July 2010 United States: The majority 58% of Americans want their troops withdrawn from the nine-year U.S. war in Afghanistan within the next one or two years. Only a minority 35% of Americans are willing to have U.S. troops stay longer than two years from now. One third, 33%, of Americans think large numbers of U.S. troops should be withdrawn in less than a year, another 23% think that should be done within one or two years, and 2% want an immediate withdrawal. The majority 54% of Americans want a timetable to be set for withdrawal from Afghanistan, while 41% do not. Only 26% of Americans think U.S. troops should remain for as long as it takes. The majority 62% of Americans think the war is going badly for the United States, up from 49% in May, while 31% still believe it is going well. The CBS News poll was conducted July 9–12, 2010.[15][16]
July 2010 United States: Support for the war in Afghanistan hit a new low again in the United States. The three-quarters majority of Americans, 76%, want to start withdrawing troops by next summer or sooner: 45% call Obama's plan to start withdrawing troops by next summer "about right", and an additional 31% call for the withdrawal to start even sooner. Only 18% think the withdrawal should start later. The majority 53% of Americans think the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting, with the plurality 38% of Americans "strongly" feeling so. Only 43% of Americans think the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, down sharply since the end of the previous year, and the lowest since the question was asked in February 2007. The plurality 44% of Americans think the war has not contributed to their country's long-term security, 28% thought had "somewhat", and 25% thought it had to a "great deal". The ABC News / Washington Post poll was conducted July 7–11, 2010.[16][17]
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Big question - Will US troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 in large or small numbers
On the website Just Foreign Policy, Robert Naiman comments, in short statements and in outlines/excerpts, on articles that report on important issues regarding the Middle East and Central Asia (e.g., Afghanistan). You can find three of his items after my observations from today's list.
The first item reports on a public opinion polls that find (1) a growing percentage (48%) of those polled think ending the war is more important than winning it, and (2) 53% now disapprove of how Obama is managing the war
The second item reports on Rep. Nancy Pelosi's insistence that there will be "a serious drawdown" of [our] forces in Afghanistan by July 2011. She is skeptical about the occupation's effectiveness and says that we need to use the money now spent on the Afghanistan occupation for domestic programs.
The third item reports on General Patreus' testimony before a Senate Committee, in which the general makes three important points on the issue of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. (1) The Afghan army won't be ready to manage on their own for years. (2) The overal "security" situation in Afghanistan is "tenuous." (3) The start of the drawdown of troops in July 2011 is only the beginning.
The key implication of these items is that there is disagreement not so much about the beginning of a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, but about just how many troops will be brought home then. If Pelosi's views prevail, a large number of troops will be withdrawn in July and in the not-many-months that follow. If Patreus' views prevail, there will only be a few US troops pulled out in July 2011, and only a small number will be leave Afghanistan in subsequent months. The implication is that, according to Patreus' preferences (speaking for the US armed forces), there will be a large number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan, even after some additional years.
Perhaps the decisive factor in determining whether there is a substantial withdrawal of US troop or just a trickle of troops coming home is the state of public opinion. If opinion continues to go against the occupation and the president, Pelosi's views may win out. Though, of course, the US military-industrial complex is a ferocious and very influential opponent when it comes to defending its preferred goals.
U.S./Top News (selected from Robert Naiman, on Just Foreign Policy, on July 1, 2010 - http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/
1) Quagmire? Nine years on, Americans grow weary of war in AfghanistanBrad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, June 26, 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0626/Quagmire-Nine-years-on-Americans-grow-weary-of-war-in-Afghanistan%20
Americans approve of Gen. David Petraeus as the new US commander in Afghanistan. But after nine years and with mounting US casualties, support for the war itself is waning.
Until recently, the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan had become "the forgotten war" for many Americans - a complaint increasingly heard among US troops there.
But this week's sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as US commander puts Afghanistan - and especially how the fight against the Taliban is going - squarely back into public thought and concern.
Most Americans agree with Obama that McChrystal had to go, polls show. But they're far less supportive of the conflict itself, weary of what's become the longest war in US history.
A recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters finds that just 41 percent "now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan." More to the point, a plurality of 48 percent now say ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of those polled by Newsweek disapprove of how Obama is managing the war - a sharp reversal since February when 55 percent supported Obama on Afghanistan and just 27 percent did not. (Put another way, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama's Afghan policy has nearly doubled in four months.)
The same Newsweek poll finds that "46 percent of respondents think America is losing the war in Afghanistan (26 percent say the military is winning).
[...]
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan predicts that conservatives may "start to peel off" as well. "Not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America," she wrote this week. "There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, 'whatever that is,' as we all now say.
"Noonan continued: "The other day Sen. Lindsey Graham, in ostensibly supportive remarks, said that Gen. David Petraeus … 'is our only hope.' If he can't pull it out, 'nobody can.' That's not all that optimistic a statement."
2) Pelosi: There Will Be 'A Serious Drawdown' From Afghanistan In July 2011Sam Stein, Huffington Post, June 28, 2010http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/pelosi-there-will-be-a-se_n_628130.html
In some of the strongest terms she has used to date, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last Friday that the United States will see "a serious drawdown" of forces in Afghanistan by July 2011 and that the House may use the power of the purse to ensure the drawdown takes place.
In an exclusive interview with the Huffington Post, Pelosi made clear that while recent talk has hinted that the administration's stated goal of a June 2011 start date for a troop drawdown may be open to change, her commitment to it remains firm. "I think we'll have a serious drawdown, I don't think it'll be, as [the president] said, turning out the lights," said Pelosi.
Asked point-blank whether she thinks troops will be pulled out of the country in July 2011, Pelosi replied: "I do. And everything I saw there before, for all the bad things there that I saw in terms of [corruption and money wasted] ... I did consistently hear that the timetable was on schedule to have serious drawdown."
[...]
Pelosi, likewise, said that the president should be afforded the time and support to see his plan through, though her insistence on seeing some troops withdrawn in July 2011 suggests that she views the drawdown as part of the plan. The issue at hand, she notes, is not simply whether it made smart military policy to keep a troop presence in Afghanistan, but also if it was economically feasible for the United States to do so."It just can't be that we have a domestic agenda that is half the size of the defense budget," she said. "If you take away entitlements, the domestic discretionary non-defense budget is about half the defense budget, and maybe that's what we need to protect the American people. But in terms of the war now in Afghanistan, which is a growing part of it, that we have to say how can we carry this and can we carry this on the backs of children's nutrition. I'm not even talking about unemployment, there's so much else that is at stake.
"3) Petraeus warns it could be years before Afghan troops manage on their own
Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date 'only start of the process'; general tells Senate tough fighting will continueIan Black, The Guardian, Wednesday 30 June 2010http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/29/david-petraeus-obama-afghanistan
Barack Obama's candidate to run the war in Afghanistan yesterday pledged America's "enduring" commitment to the country, described its security as "tenuous" and called the presidential deadline for starting withdrawals next summer only "the beginning of a process".
[...]
Petraeus, head of US central command, endorsed July 2011 as the start of troop drawdowns, but insisted it was not the date when America "heads for the exits"; he warned it would be "a number of years" before Afghan forces could manage on their own. The pace of withdrawals would have to be responsible, he told a packed session of the armed services committee, as protesters in the audience held up signs reading: "New General, Old War."Petraeus confirmed that the military had not recommended setting that date.
June has been the most deadly month of the nine-year conflict, with more than 100 Nato troops killed, adding to an intensifying debate in the US and Britain on the prosecution of the war. Eleven UK personnel have died in the last 10 days alone.
Petraeus's careful language appeared designed to manage strains between the military and the administration, where some key figures are pressing for speedier disengagement from a war which has now been going on for longer than Vietnam in terms of US combat troop deployment.
[...]
The first item reports on a public opinion polls that find (1) a growing percentage (48%) of those polled think ending the war is more important than winning it, and (2) 53% now disapprove of how Obama is managing the war
The second item reports on Rep. Nancy Pelosi's insistence that there will be "a serious drawdown" of [our] forces in Afghanistan by July 2011. She is skeptical about the occupation's effectiveness and says that we need to use the money now spent on the Afghanistan occupation for domestic programs.
The third item reports on General Patreus' testimony before a Senate Committee, in which the general makes three important points on the issue of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. (1) The Afghan army won't be ready to manage on their own for years. (2) The overal "security" situation in Afghanistan is "tenuous." (3) The start of the drawdown of troops in July 2011 is only the beginning.
The key implication of these items is that there is disagreement not so much about the beginning of a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, but about just how many troops will be brought home then. If Pelosi's views prevail, a large number of troops will be withdrawn in July and in the not-many-months that follow. If Patreus' views prevail, there will only be a few US troops pulled out in July 2011, and only a small number will be leave Afghanistan in subsequent months. The implication is that, according to Patreus' preferences (speaking for the US armed forces), there will be a large number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan, even after some additional years.
Perhaps the decisive factor in determining whether there is a substantial withdrawal of US troop or just a trickle of troops coming home is the state of public opinion. If opinion continues to go against the occupation and the president, Pelosi's views may win out. Though, of course, the US military-industrial complex is a ferocious and very influential opponent when it comes to defending its preferred goals.
U.S./Top News (selected from Robert Naiman, on Just Foreign Policy, on July 1, 2010 - http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/
1) Quagmire? Nine years on, Americans grow weary of war in AfghanistanBrad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, June 26, 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0626/Quagmire-Nine-years-on-Americans-grow-weary-of-war-in-Afghanistan%20
Americans approve of Gen. David Petraeus as the new US commander in Afghanistan. But after nine years and with mounting US casualties, support for the war itself is waning.
Until recently, the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan had become "the forgotten war" for many Americans - a complaint increasingly heard among US troops there.
But this week's sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as US commander puts Afghanistan - and especially how the fight against the Taliban is going - squarely back into public thought and concern.
Most Americans agree with Obama that McChrystal had to go, polls show. But they're far less supportive of the conflict itself, weary of what's become the longest war in US history.
A recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters finds that just 41 percent "now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan." More to the point, a plurality of 48 percent now say ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of those polled by Newsweek disapprove of how Obama is managing the war - a sharp reversal since February when 55 percent supported Obama on Afghanistan and just 27 percent did not. (Put another way, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama's Afghan policy has nearly doubled in four months.)
The same Newsweek poll finds that "46 percent of respondents think America is losing the war in Afghanistan (26 percent say the military is winning).
[...]
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan predicts that conservatives may "start to peel off" as well. "Not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America," she wrote this week. "There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, 'whatever that is,' as we all now say.
"Noonan continued: "The other day Sen. Lindsey Graham, in ostensibly supportive remarks, said that Gen. David Petraeus … 'is our only hope.' If he can't pull it out, 'nobody can.' That's not all that optimistic a statement."
2) Pelosi: There Will Be 'A Serious Drawdown' From Afghanistan In July 2011Sam Stein, Huffington Post, June 28, 2010http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/pelosi-there-will-be-a-se_n_628130.html
In some of the strongest terms she has used to date, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last Friday that the United States will see "a serious drawdown" of forces in Afghanistan by July 2011 and that the House may use the power of the purse to ensure the drawdown takes place.
In an exclusive interview with the Huffington Post, Pelosi made clear that while recent talk has hinted that the administration's stated goal of a June 2011 start date for a troop drawdown may be open to change, her commitment to it remains firm. "I think we'll have a serious drawdown, I don't think it'll be, as [the president] said, turning out the lights," said Pelosi.
Asked point-blank whether she thinks troops will be pulled out of the country in July 2011, Pelosi replied: "I do. And everything I saw there before, for all the bad things there that I saw in terms of [corruption and money wasted] ... I did consistently hear that the timetable was on schedule to have serious drawdown."
[...]
Pelosi, likewise, said that the president should be afforded the time and support to see his plan through, though her insistence on seeing some troops withdrawn in July 2011 suggests that she views the drawdown as part of the plan. The issue at hand, she notes, is not simply whether it made smart military policy to keep a troop presence in Afghanistan, but also if it was economically feasible for the United States to do so."It just can't be that we have a domestic agenda that is half the size of the defense budget," she said. "If you take away entitlements, the domestic discretionary non-defense budget is about half the defense budget, and maybe that's what we need to protect the American people. But in terms of the war now in Afghanistan, which is a growing part of it, that we have to say how can we carry this and can we carry this on the backs of children's nutrition. I'm not even talking about unemployment, there's so much else that is at stake.
"3) Petraeus warns it could be years before Afghan troops manage on their own
Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date 'only start of the process'; general tells Senate tough fighting will continueIan Black, The Guardian, Wednesday 30 June 2010http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/29/david-petraeus-obama-afghanistan
Barack Obama's candidate to run the war in Afghanistan yesterday pledged America's "enduring" commitment to the country, described its security as "tenuous" and called the presidential deadline for starting withdrawals next summer only "the beginning of a process".
[...]
Petraeus, head of US central command, endorsed July 2011 as the start of troop drawdowns, but insisted it was not the date when America "heads for the exits"; he warned it would be "a number of years" before Afghan forces could manage on their own. The pace of withdrawals would have to be responsible, he told a packed session of the armed services committee, as protesters in the audience held up signs reading: "New General, Old War."Petraeus confirmed that the military had not recommended setting that date.
June has been the most deadly month of the nine-year conflict, with more than 100 Nato troops killed, adding to an intensifying debate in the US and Britain on the prosecution of the war. Eleven UK personnel have died in the last 10 days alone.
Petraeus's careful language appeared designed to manage strains between the military and the administration, where some key figures are pressing for speedier disengagement from a war which has now been going on for longer than Vietnam in terms of US combat troop deployment.
[...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
