TPMDC
Poll: Public Opposes Afghanistan War -- And Favors Sending More Troops
A convoy of trucks leave Kandahar Air Field.
Share
Send to a friend!
A new CNN poll finds a curious result: Overlapping majorities of Americans oppose the Afghanistan War and favor President Obama's decision to send more troops there.
Respondents were asked: "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?" Here the answer is that only 43% favor the war, and 55% oppose it.
But another question: "Regardless of how you feel about the war in general, do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to send about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?" Here it becomes 59% in favor, to 39% against.
The bottom line: Support for sending more troops runs 16 points ahead of support for the war itself. A previous CNN poll a month ago had a similar case of overlapping majorities, though the gap wasn't as stark then as it is now.
The pollster's analysis points out that only 18% of respondents think the United States is winning right now. "That may explain the support for Obama's plan, since a victory is likely to require more troops," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "But it may also explain the overall opposition to the war, since Americans tend to dislike losing."
Comments (15) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
converse
December 23, 2009 10:20 AM
Perfect example of the ridiculous positions created when one relies on polls instead of common sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 23, 2009 10:45 AM
It's not that complicated. People are against the war because it is an absurd, pointless effort. Despite this, they are backing the President's escalation because they are wiling to give his attempt to turn things around a chance. The public is foolishly giving him the benefit of the doubt. Those numbers will change fairly quickly when it becomes clear that this is simply another Vietnam and can't be won or "secured" no matter how many troops are sent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
December 23, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to oleeb
"foolishly giving him the benefit of the doubt."
This is the problem with those who think troops won't work. Pres. Obama has been in office for 11 months. He didn't start the war and is trying to clean up the mess left behind. It's not as simple as just leaving. Obama knows he's operating on a short time line. If things don't turn around, he's not going to continue to send more and more troops which is where your vietnam analogy falls apart. Giving him 18 months to attempt to clean up the mess this way isn't foolish. It's rational.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
December 23, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to calchala
I couldn't agree with you more. Some people see "Another Vietnam" because that's all they ever look for. Heaven forbid a new President would look at the conditions left to him by a previous administration and try to use a new approach to achieve a favorable outcome. Insurgency? Troop Increase? It's Another Vietnam!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
December 23, 2009 3:29 PM in reply to calchala
Agreed. The Viet Nam vets I've "polled" also agree. Leaving Afghanistan in its current state could (and probably would) have disastrous results. Most notably, the reinsurgance of Taliban. Just handing the country over to them with a big bow is not an option. Making a real attempt at strengthening the Afghan military and improving their economy in the meantime so that they not only CAN fight them but WANT to is definitely in our (and the rest of the world's) best interest.
Or, we can just line our coasts with anti-aircraft weaponry, close all the borders (yes, even Canada) and cower in fear like the right does every time we talk about putting terrorists on trial on US soil.
Before you call me a chickenhawk, my son is a Sgt. in the Marines. I'd prefer world peace. But, sending the terrorists kittens and cookies isn't going to do us any good. Giving them a continent will do even less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michaelc
December 23, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to WaitWut?
You are aware that they said the same thing about Vietnam, how the sky would fall if we left a communist regime in power there? Then we left a communist regime in power and nothing disastrous happened and now it is a popular tourist destination.
Are we so afraid of a few hundred guys in caves with less collective economic power than a single Goldman Sacks mid level executive that we have to try and change every regime that we don't like?
Let the Afghans kick the Taliban out themselves if they want to. It worked for us kicking the British out of our country pretty well. The fact that we got sucker punched on 9/11 does not mean that we need to be petrified of every looney hatemonger out there.
Personally I am concerned with saving American lives, and the fact that we lose 40k people in car accidents every single year is a far more pernicious threat than Al Quada. We could cut that threat in half with a tiny fraction of what we are spending in Afghanistan in a single month. That makes more sense to me than throwing lives and money away on a highly speculative mission overseas that even the citizens are ambivalent about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
December 23, 2009 5:36 PM in reply to Michaelc
Yes, I am aware of what they said of Viet Nam. I just don't believe comparing the two is sensible. We have real threats, with real countries that are acquiring the ability to have real weapons. Though history is always a good teacher, it is not necessarily the best dictator.
Viet Nam was a senseless, paranoid tragedy. And, yes, some of the issues we have with the Taliban "may" be paranoid, but we can't afford to ignore the possibility that they may someday have access to nuclear weapons, or countries that are sympathetic to them that have access. We can ignore them now and have to deal with them later, but is that the correct action to take? I don't believe so, and apparently I'm not alone.
I'm all for protecting American lives. My sister just called and when we talk about the "war" we speak in some sort of bizarre code. "How is he?" "Is he?" "When will he?" There are never full sentences. Never actual questions. And, sadly, no actual answers.
And, in answer to your latest post about how many US troop deaths are "acceptable"...
How many civilian deaths are acceptable in order to ignore Afghanistan?
a) 1
b) 3000
c) 1 million
My son, like every other service member, signed up for the job. I support him and every one of these men and women. That includes wanting them all to come home safe to their families. To have them all come home whole. But, there's a painful reality that I and all family members face.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going home soon to celebrate the holidays with my son and his new wife. You have a pleasant holiday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 24, 2009 11:20 PM in reply to WaitWut?
"Yes, I am aware of what they said of Viet Nam. I just don't believe comparing the two is sensible."
With all due respect what you are saying is that even though you know they said exactly the same stuff about Viet Nam you simply are going to declare that it isn't "sensible" despite all the obvious similarities and the almost exact same rhetorical and propaganda ploys being used by the government? It is an exact replay of Vietnam except this one will be far more disasterous to us the longer we stay. It's time to start dealing with reality and dispensing with all the propaganda and lies coming out of Washington and the Pentagon. The problems we are undeniably creating by our presence in Aghanistan and Pakistan are far worse than the imaginary threat there. Merry Christmas!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 24, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to calchala
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is a simple matter of just leaving.
Obama has committed our nation to an unending war of indeterminate length. I cannot help you to see the truth if you are so gullible as to believe that he is trying to end the war as he so deceitfully says. He has completely capitulated to the warmongering factions of both our imperialist parties, is giving a blank check to the military and there isn't a chance in hell in 18 months that he's going to do then, what he should be doing now which is ordering the orderly but swift withdrawal of our troops. No, in 18 months we will be sold another bill of goods about how we are just turning the corner, and with only an additional X amount of troops and time we can secure, blah, blah, blah, bullshit. You can go right ahead and feel as though your President can be believed despite the unabmiguous and very clear statements of his generals, and both DEFSEC and SECSTATE to the contrary. The only viable "solution" or action to be taken is to get the hell out of there. We don't belong there. We have no productive reason to be there. Our presence destabilizes the entire region and breeds anti-American/anti-western sentiment throughout the Muslim world. The convoluted logic for remaining in that country, the tortured reasoning and all the propaganda is simply preposterous yet many want to give the liars and generals a chance despite knowing that the tactics and stratey they are selling has been proven not to work over and over. What a shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 24, 2009 11:12 PM in reply to calchala
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is a simple matter of just leaving.
Obama has committed our nation to an unending war of indeterminate length. I cannot help you to see the truth if you are so gullible as to believe that he is trying to end the war as he so deceitfully says. He has completely capitulated to the warmongering factions of both our imperialist parties, is giving a blank check to the military and there isn't a chance in hell in 18 months that he's going to do then, what he should be doing now which is ordering the orderly but swift withdrawal of our troops. No, in 18 months we will be sold another bill of goods about how we are just turning the corner, and with only an additional X amount of troops and time we can secure, blah, blah, blah, bullshit. You can go right ahead and feel as though your President can be believed despite the unabmiguous and very clear statements of his generals, and both DEFSEC and SECSTATE to the contrary. The only viable "solution" or action to be taken is to get the hell out of there. We don't belong there. We have no productive reason to be there. Our presence destabilizes the entire region and breeds anti-American/anti-western sentiment throughout the Muslim world. The convoluted logic for remaining in that country, the tortured reasoning and all the propaganda is simply preposterous yet many want to give the liars and generals a chance despite knowing that the tactics and stratey they are selling has been proven not to work over and over. What a shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thecrow
December 23, 2009 11:00 AM
Don't worry, America. These boys never miss:
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/first-person-sho0ter/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKDC
December 23, 2009 11:05 AM
A perfect example of why the sudden rush to imply that administration should conduct policy through public polling is completely absurd - you might as well poll a bunch of meerkats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 23, 2009 1:03 PM
It's not just the question, but how the question is interpreted. I can see respondents thinking the question about supporting the war in terms of "would you start the war if it were starting now", whereas the troops question could be, "given where we are now,...". The poll makes sense if respondents think they're being asked what should we have done, and what should we do now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 23, 2009 3:00 PM
Americans. What a bunch of putzes!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michaelc
December 23, 2009 4:05 PM
Perhaps a better poll would be:
How many US troop deaths are acceptable in order to win in Afghanistan?
a) Up to 1000 troop deaths
b) Up to 2000 troop deaths
c) Up to 4000 troop deaths
d) Up to 8000 troop deaths
e) Up to 16000 troop deaths
e) Up to 32000 troop deaths
f) More than 32000 troop deaths
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?