Only 36 Percent of Democrats Call Afghanistan 'A War Worth Fighting'

[bigtree]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support Barack Obama’s decision to send 17,000 more U.S. military forces to Afghanistan – despite substantial skepticism on whether the war there’s been worth fighting.

Sixty-four percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll support the deployment, even though just half say the war in Afghanistan’s been worth it, and half, likewise, are convinced that victory there is required for the broader war on terrorism to succeed.

There’s considerable bipartisanship for the deployment; it’s favored by 60 percent of independents, 63 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans. That seems to reflect a convergence of two forces: Republicans’ support for the war, and Democrats’ support for Obama.


WORTH IT? – In this ABC/Post poll, Americans divide by 50-47 percent on whether the conflict in Afghanistan was worth fighting, with the negative view at a new high in ABC/Post polls. Support for the war doubles among Republicans, 74 percent, compared with Democrats, 36 percent.

There’s also a 50-41 percent division on whether winning in Afghanistan is necessary for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, with a similar broad partisan gap – 75 percent of Republicans say yes; four in 10 Democrats agree . . .


ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
FOR RELEASE AFTER 12:01 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1086a4AfghanistanIraq.pdf

[MadBadger]

1. 63% of Democrats support Obama's Actions in sending troops

Picking and choosing headlines are we?

[bigtree]

2. This is general discussion. I can highlight what I want.

I think the numbers supporting the escalation are remarkable, given the numbers who don't have any faith or belief in the wisdom of the enterprise.

Of course, that juxtaposition was covered in the poll summary :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

7. "The war hasn't been worth it" doesn't necessarily mean that the war is a bad idea.

It might rather be (and given the support for sending more troops, probably is) a case of people saying that the war has yet to bear any fruit due to the incompetent way that Bush handled it, but that they think Obama can pursue the war in a successful way.

[bigtree]

11. I think the fact that they acknowledge the incorrectness of the enterprise is important

The poll clearly shows that they don't see it as integral to the success of the 'war on terrorism' which is the central justification for the deployment.

The Democratic respondents may well believe that Obama can get our troops' asses out of the Afghan fire successfully, but they don't show any sign in this poll that any 'success' they are seeking out of their support for the escalation has anything at all to do with 'bearing fruit'.

[Occam Bandage]

12. The poll doesn't show that, either. The question is nonspecific.

When a person says, "the war has not been worth it," they might very well be (and given the question on support for expanding the war, probably are) saying that the war has not yet shown any signs of success, but that Obama will be able to succeed in Afghanistan in ways that Bush could not.

I'm not sure why you say the "war on terror" is Obama's central justification. Obama doesn't even use the phrase, "war on terror."

[bigtree]

15. we all know that the mission is rooted in the response to the 9-11 attacks

I referenced the 'war on terror' because that's what was put to the respondents:

"There’s a 50-41 percent division on whether winning in Afghanistan is necessary for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, with a similar broad partisan gap – 75 percent of Republicans say yes; four in 10 Democrats agree."

I think you are bending over backwards to represent these Democratic respondents as supportive a continuing mission in Afghanistan. Outside of their support for this new deployment - which has been described as a 'stopgap' measure in support of security for the upcoming elections and a bolstering of NATO's border defense - there is nothing in this poll that suggests support for any prosecution of the present mission to some nebulous definition of 'success'.

There is no defined mission for our troops in *Afghanistan outside of the original response to the 9-11 killings. There may well be support expressed for whatever definition of the mission emerges in March from the 'review', but these respondents are making a judgment on how they perceive the present mission.

The majority of Democratic respondents reject the argument that 'winning' the present mission in Afghanistan is 'necessary for the broader war on terrorism to be a success.' That's a hell of an indictment on the present mission. Hopefully the new focus will be different. If not, I suspect that the response will be the same.

*edit

[Occam Bandage]

18. And I think you are bending over backwards to represent

Democratic respondents who specifically say they support an increased mission in Afghanistan to be against the mission in Afghanistan.

[bigtree]

20. the poll shows they supported an increase in the troops, not support for the mission

. . . which has yet to be defined. As for the original mission for our troops in Afghanistan:

The poll shows the majority of Democrats view the mission in Afghanistan as unnecessary to any 'success' in the 'broader war on terrorism'.

[Occam Bandage]

21. So what, exactly, do you think is their position?

You're skipping around, talking about "the broader war on terrorism," which is not the specific mission in Afghanistan. The Afghan war is currently a mix of anti-terrorism, humanitarian, anti-drug-crime, and pro-stability (in Afghanistan and Pakistan alike) operations.

I understand that most Dems think that the war hasn't been worth it so far, and that the war isn't necessary to fight terror. I've already told you how I reconcile that with the fact that most Dems are also in favor of sending more troops to Afghanistan to widen the scope of our operations. I highly doubt they're in favor of sending more troops to withdraw them.

[bigtree]

23. I think that if the mission there is ultimately defined by the new administration

. . . in the same terms as it has been so far (as a pursuit against 'terror' and a defense of our national security) the support for the deployment will dry up. I think the support for the increase is based on faith in the new president. Part of that faith among the majority of Democrats is that he'll bring the enterprise to an end.

I think this poll reflects the respondents' lack of faith in the present mission of occupying Afghanistan (which has been clearly defined in the manner that the poll represents: as a part of the 'war on terrorism').

As I said, the escalation was represented as a stop-gap, rather than an adjunct to a comprehensive mission outside of the original defense of our 'national security' that the Afghanistan mission has been presented as for years now. (which the Democratic respondents clearly reject.)

It *makes sense that Democrats would support their president in the limited goals he set out for this deployment. It remains to be seen whether that support will translate into approval for whatever comprehensive plan for the future that the president presents in March.

[hendo]

25. polls can be made to show anything.

I used to both design and give polls.
And in the words of one of my favorite professors, "Now, what do you want this data to tell you? Because we can make it say anythign you want."

[bigtree]

27. ha!

pretty weak

[hendo]

28. I could have pulled out the 63%

but it had already been done.

[bigtree]

29. well done

[WI_DEM]

3. true there is skeptism esp among dems but still 63% of them favor additional troops

I think the skeptism is due to Bush's conduct of the war, and many people think Obama may be more focused in getting us out of Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan. It should have been done years ago because now Bin-Laden is long gone.

[bigtree]

4. I think it's mostly faith in Obama

. . . even more remarkable given the lack of any comprehensive mission announced by the president for those troops.

[Mari333]

5. oh, I so WISH there were a DRAFT!!!

that would wake up the mob (chickenhawks) who support these occupations and surges.

[hendo]

26. ah, but they won't be the ones who are drafted. NT

[Occam Bandage]

6. So most Dems think the war hasn't yet been worth it, but that we should send more troops to

secure the country and bring about a truly peaceful end for us and for the Afghans. That isn't quite what your headline implies.

[bigtree]

8. I don't think that's an endorsment of continuing

. . . as much as a recognition that more troops are needed there right now.

I think the questions in the poll which deal with the reaction to the efficacy of the overall operation in Afghanistan are the most revealing, notwithstanding the remarkable contradiction in their support for the 'surge'.

[Occam Bandage]

9. I don't see a difference.

Sending more troops is continuing the war. Are you suggesting, then, that most people are both in favor of sending additional troops to Afghanistan, and of quitting Afghanistan entirely? I think that it's unsupported to claim that people's belief that the war has not yet been successful is equal to a belief that the war is not worth continuing, especially when the same people believe that Obama should send more troops to fight the war.

[bigtree]

13. Hell, even I believe the troops there need support right now

That's barring an abrupt exit which I don't expect . . . neither do the respondents, I imagine. Then again, neither of us really know what they are basing their opinion on. There is no announced mission for the troops.

And, as I pointed out, only a small minority of the Democratic respondents view the Afghanistan mission as integral to the success of any 'war on terror'.

[Occam Bandage]

19. "Neither of us really know what they are basing their opinion on"

Which is why your claim that they're against the war is pure bullshit.

[bigtree]

22. I haven't stated anything which isn't in the poll.

I haven't stated that 'they're against the war'.

The poll shows that the majority of Democrats don't view the mission in Afghanistan as necessary to 'success' in the 'war on terrorism'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. A lot less consider it worth fighting...

when you ask them to enlist.

[serrano2008]

14. Most people still don't understand the differences between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[bigtree]

17. what a joke

. . . let's assume the public who voted Obama and other Democrats into leadership in the WH and Congress don't know their heads from their asses.

That's the ticket :eyes:

[OwnedByFerrets]

16. Its not a war worth fighting, nor do I support it.

You dont win hearts and minds by killing a countries citizens.

[bigtree]

31. amen

[hendo]

24. 38% of democrats strongly support it though.

I wonder what happened to the extra 2%.

[Mari333]

30. the ones that support it need to enlist nt

[hendo]

35. unfortunately that doesn't mean they actually will.

It's far easier to support something when you do not actually have to shoulder the burden.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. About the same number that supported the invasion of Iraq..at first.

Give it time, cost, and casualties, and those numbers will flip.

Not only is the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan immoral but it's downright stupid.

[Ardent15]

33. It absolutely is a war worth fighting

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I wish I could explain here why this is a far more complex issue

than I have time for

There are reasons to support this, and there are equally valid reasons to oppose it

Suffice it to say that the next to least time we actually had a chance to make a real difference we abandoned them and the last time Bush screwed the pooch so badly that the window for real change already came and went.

Sadly most folks probably will have no clue what this is about either...

And no, don't feel like going into full details tonight.