ABC/Post poll: Republicans say war in Afghanistan “not worth fighting”
The Washington Post writes a half-assed story (as usual) that leans heavily on a poll they did with ABC which says that a majority of Republicans who they polled say that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. In their half-assed way, the Post strikes a glancing blow at Obama and merely touches on the reason that poll might have turned out that way;
The poll findings are likely to present a challenge for Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, who has said that the goal in Afghanistan should be to defeat the Taliban on the battlefield.
President Obama stepped back from that goal during his 2009 strategy review and has set the end of 2014 as the departure date for all U.S. combat forces.
Overall, the Post-ABC News poll reflects a country bone-weary of war after more than a decade of fighting in Afghanistan and, until late last year, an almost nine-year engagement in Iraq.
Romney is correct; the goal should be to defeat the Taliban (and al Qaeda) in Afghanistan, but as I’ve said countless times since the summer of 2009, victory isn’t even in the vocabulary of the Obama Administration. Their goal in Afghanistan begins and ends with “withdrawal” – I’m pretty sure that Republicans don’t support the war in Afghanistan, not because of it’s length or their bone-weariness. But because this administration has continued the presence of troops in Afghanistan just so he could ride on their shoulders into the next election. Witness the Post quoting his latest campaign meme;
“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq,” Obama told an audience in Hollywood, Fla., at a campaign fundraising event Tuesday. “And we’ve begun to transition in Afghanistan to put Afghans in the lead, bring our troops home.”
You can play back an interview on YouTube that I did with Adam Kokesh back in early Spring of 2009 wherein I told Kokesh that I support Obama’s war policy, however, by the Fall, my support of his policy fell off when he ignored his generals’ recommendation for 60,000 troops and made a political decision to compromise between his generals’ recommendation and the anti-war crowd. At that point, I knew any decisions that came out of the White House weren’t going to be in support of our National Defense, or in support of our troops – it was going to be in support of Obama/Biden 2012.
Republicans are disillusioned with the war in Afghanistan because they know what victory should look like, and we’re not going to see it Afghanistan. The only victory that the Obama Administration can see in Afghanistan is the one in November. Who wants to be the last to die in Afghanistan for the Obama/Biden 2012 campaign?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
I think the comparison is absolutely apt. A point we will have to simply disagree about.
As to how I feel about funding the Afghan security circus currently in place? I’ve pointed out before CI, I have my own ideas on how to handle Afghanistan, ideas that unfortunately our nation no longer has the stomach to entertain. If you want to know how I really feel about it, read Tom Kratman’s “A Desert Called Peace”. Yes, I do support that ruthless an approach to the WHOLE problem.
“Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.”
Appeasement did not work in the 1930’s. Retreat did not work in the 1993.
And unless you have the authority of your employer to be speak on his behalf, then you need to leave him out of it. Or to put it another way, I suspect you have broken the conditions of your employment by implicating your opinions as his. Frankly, I don’t believe you have the authorization to claim to speak for him, nor to expose his opinions publicly.
Perhaps you were the analyst that determined the Muslim Brotherhood should be given Egypt?!? Or that Pakistan should be alienated?!?
Jacobite: We will agree to disagree, but I’ll see if I can find a good synopsis of the Kratman book.
WOTN: If you are as smart as you attempt to portray yourself, you’ll note that I have not written anything that can not be corroborated in open source. So you can kindly take your harrumphing where somebody cares.
By your last comment, I can foresee that you believe the current administration somehow at fault for not impeding the overthrow of an oppressive government. Perhaps you’re of the Gaffney school where the MB has infiltrated the GOP?
The book is fiction, war porn if you will, but the protagonist definitely seems to be a vehicle for Kratman’s dark side.
You may be interested in Kratman himself, I would encourage you to read his biography, you can find it on Wikipedia. He has led a fascinating professional life deeply mired in these types of issues.
So, go ahead and point to the open source where your employer has stated YOUR opinions.
You didn’t claim that your opinion was that of “open source,” but rather the analysis derived of classified assess. And frankly it doesn’t matter if material has “already been” exposed in “open source.” Personally, I think you’re puffing up, trying to pretend you have access you don’t, in support of your politicians, because if you had access you would know that you stating your personal opinion as a classified fact was illegal.
Now, if you can read, you won’t have to make assumptions about the Obama Administration being culpable for the rapid expansion of Islamism from 2010 to 2012, and the alienation of Pakistan. I already stated in this thread that I opposed him for bungling the National Defense of this Nation.
And when he proposed his plan to bomb Pakistan in 2008, I predicted the resulting breakdown of the alliance if he followed through with it, before the election. That doesn’t make me a prophet. It was me stating the obvious: that betraying the National sovereignity of an ally will alienate them.
So, here we are in 2012, and I join a chorus of others that have been there, done that, again stating the obvious: the retreating from the battlefield and appeasing the Taliban will produce the same results that were produced from 1996-2001. That doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out, nor does it make us prophets. It is stating the obvious, for those that have studied and LEARNED from history.
WOTN: You’re truly missing out on critical comprehension if you think that anything I’ve said was represented as an official opinion of the agency I work for; was anything stated as representing classified information; or was anything that can be remotely traced to classified collections and analysis by any amount of conspiracy. You have an obvious political axe to grind, and you can’t adequately answer the points I posited earlier. One has to only read foreign policy and national security experts, the news and announcements from DoD, the White House and various testimonies in from of House and Senate Committees to be apprised of the specific points you have been unable or unwilling to confront: that al Qaeda has little commitment in Afghanistan; has affiliates that are thriving; that the decade plus spent in Afghanistan has had little impact on AQAM; that terror organizations don’t rely on real estate; that AQ in particular doesn’t rely on the Taliban; we would not only have to fund the AFG security apparatus for several decades to come, and using this model, would have to repeat the process in Yemen, Somalia, Mali and a host of others. You also can’t even come to terms with my example of having the enemy at a location of our choosing instead of everywhere we aren’t. Your position lives and dies by the idea that a piece of real estate and an indigenous insurgency is the keystone to defeating an enemy whose critical mass isn’t there. For some reason, you support nibbling at the fingers and toes instead of attacking the heart and brain of the enemy who attacked us. So you use the tired tactics of deflection and diversions, while relying on memes and talking points. That’s the difference between the exchange between you and I….and myself and Hondo and Jacobite. I may not agree with their positions even in the end, but I’ll treat their assessments with respect and maturity. I’m not terribly interested in your assignment of blame for everything on the current Administration, it grew stale during the last Administration, and I can get… Read more »
“But for background, I work in the IC, in an organization who’s primary mission is intelligence analysis of threat networks. Whether or not you believe my assessment, please know that it’s not personal opinion or political spin.” in #43 above is where you claim that your opinions are not your own, but those of (fallible) intelligence agencies. As I said, I think you’re blowing smoke up our collective butts, as those with a clearance to work in such a place would know the legal ramifications of publicizing such information. Now, you claim it is the opinion of politicians and political publications (“Foreign Policy”), which is closer to the truth. Unfortunately, you fail to understand the nature of the enemy, and seek to deflect reality by means of confusing the nature of the enemy by use of various acronyms describing different parts of the same beast: Al-Qaeda and the wider Islamist ideology, while simultaneously attempting to falsely proclaim that my position is ONLY to defeat the Taliban. Retreat from Somalia emboldened OBL and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are allies. The Taliban ARE fighting us in Afghanistan. If your “logic” held true, that would be like shooting fish in the barrel. Instead, the Taliban launched co-ordinated attacks in various Afghan cities TODAY, as well as on a prison in Waziristan, where they freed hundreds of Taliban terrorists. Defeating the enemy does not entail retreating from the largest concentrated force of their alliance, the Taliban. If one assumes your analysis is correct, i.e. that Al-Qaeda (another enemy unit) has dispersed, then now is the time to expand the military, not throw 100,000 into the streets. And to a great extent, you are correct: since 2010, the Islamist threat has increased and Al-Qaeda has increased international operations: Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, Libya, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia, AND Afghanistan. And those operations are partially funded by Somali Pirates. That expansion, as well as the alienation of allies IS a direct result of the Administration policies. The emboldenment and resurgence of the Taliban is also a direct result of the Administration policies. Of… Read more »
@WOTN – “#43 above is where you claim that your opinions are not your own, but those of (fallible) intelligence agencies.” Nope…still wrong. #43 is where I gave my frame of reference in a topic that it was applicable, as I would expect another to do if they were able to do the same. It’s called informed opinion, but apparently you’ve not been introduced to the concept. “As I said, I think you’re blowing smoke up our collective butts, as those with a clearance to work in such a place would know the legal ramifications of publicizing such information.” Ah, but what information did I publicize? That’s right, I didn’t posit any classified information did I? You are using this as a distraction to not answer the points I raised…..again. But rest assured, even you must realize that there is nearly nothing more irrelevant in my life than what you think of me. “…while simultaneously attempting to falsely proclaim that my position is ONLY to defeat the Taliban.” No, wrong again. I identify quite accurately that you believe the road to defeating al Qaeda runs specifically and unequivocally through the indigenous insurgency in Afghanistan. Even though al Qaeda is both physically and focused elsewhere. It can also be argued that invading Iraq in 2003 emboldened al Qaeda, though partisanship may prevent you from accepting that. Defeating the Taliban [whom you place far more stock in allying with AQ than is actually the case] doesn’t harm al Qaeda beyond tempering the financial and recruitment incentives that our presence yields. “And those operations are partially funded by Somali Pirates.” Not really, beyond non-interference payments and some transshipment agreements, there is little love between al Shabaab and the pirate collective. The tenets of Islam as practiced in HOA does not lend itself to be conciliatory with piracy. I never stated that the Taliban weren’t an enemy, of course they’re shooting at us, they want their country back. But they are not a tangible threat to US national security. Vague notions of national pride may persuade you otherwise, but al Qaeda is the threat.… Read more »
Jacobite I’m with you have had the exact same argument with CI many times.
It’s frustrating. I don’t hold the guy any ill will, and I believe he really believes his analysis is spot on, but I think a key part of his analysis is based on an unreasonable expectation of future behaviors on the part of the locals in Afghanistan. History paints a different picture.
The phrase “he can’t see the forest for the trees” keeps running through my mind.
And I share the same sentiments towards you, Hondo and Cedo…..though I don’t consider the future behavior of Afghans to be a primary component on the actions of al Qaeda. I’m not arguing that the Taliban aren’t bad guys, or that the possibility doesn’t exist that they would invite al Qaeda back in, just that it’s not the linchpin for defeating al Qaeda. They really never have been, especially since 2002.