U.S. Military Confidence (Officers and Non-Com. Officers) Sinks on 'Winning' Afghan War, Poll Finds

[bigtree]

04/13/10

The military's confidence that it will win the Afghan war is declining, according to a new tracking poll showing only 60 percent of active-duty military personnel believe the U.S. can triumph.

The poll, conducted by the Military Times newspapers, which are not affiliated with the Defense Department, showed the percentage of respondents who believe the United States is likely to win in Afghanistan has dropped from 77 in 2008 to 68 in 2009 to 60 percent in late January and early February of this year.

The poll findings come as casualties are rising and as President Obama is boosting combat forces there.

"It seems like our efforts are not going anywhere,'' the Times quoted an anonymous Marine as saying. The Times said the Marine had helped build a school in Afghanistan in 2008 that was partially destroyed by insurgents. "It seems like we're going in a big circle,'' he said.

Military Times, a subsidiary of Gannett, publisher of USA Today, publishes weekly newspapers that cover each of the military services. The poll was an online survey of subscribers, including some 1,800 active-duty military members. More than 200 responded while deployed in or near a war zone, the Times said, mostly officers and non-commissioned officers.

read more: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/13/u-s-military-confidence-sinks-on-winning-afghan-war-poll-finds/


We Just Can't Win in Afghanistan . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8139066

[LakeSamish706]

1. Many of us are still waiting to find out what constitutes a win in Afghanistan!

No one that I know of has told us what a win looks like.

[jody]

2. Military can't win with political constraints. FDR knew that, unconditional surrender works. n/t

[bigtree]

3. "The solution in Afghanistan is not just military "

-- "it is political and economic."

- Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Aug 1, 2007

[jody]

7. Current question is whether Obama will make the same mistakes as his predecessors and seek a

military/political solution which is doomed to fail OR pursue a military solution that may win but at what cost?

[bigtree]

8. he's a 'split-the difference' pol

. . . overseeing these occupations from an intellectual distance; relying on the advice of a pack of Bush-era military (industry) officials bent on 'winning' or perpetuating whatever fight they started, and determined to find a place in their militarism for his pipe dreams about political or diplomatic solutions to it all.

The cost . . .?

[jody]

9. 'split-the difference' pol like: head in the oven, feet in the freezer, on average comfortable. n/t

[Echo In Light]

4. k/r

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. They're only trying to be seen as "not losing". It's a "Peace with Honor" stratagy of getting out.

It's about politics and PR now. Acknowledging a lost war doesn't look good for politicians or generals, and they're doing what they can to avoid (another) embarrassment.

[unhappycamper]

6. Well, at least 40% of them read some history.

Occupations do not work.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Why don't they just shut up and support the troops?

As for "just going around in a big circle" - well what do you think it looks like when victory is just around the corner?

[jody]

11. 1. They are the troops, 2. Build, rebuild, rebuild ad infinitum is not a winning military strategy.

[kenny blankenship]

12. I would say you have an astounding grasp of the obvious.

But you would be sure to prove me a liar.

[jody]

13. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy for #10. n/t

[branders seine]

14. no comprehensible definition of 'winning' has ever been provided,

so no fucking wonder we can't "win."


this has never been about an outcome on the ground over there (either in Iraq or Afghanistan). This has been purely about profits and politics over here. Just being there was the bush AND apparently the Obama definition of "winning."

Mission Accomplished! :patriot: