Team Obama Divided, Public Strongly Opposed, to More Troops in Afghanistan

Top officials of the Obama Administration are divided on the expected request of the Pentagon for more troops in Afghanistan, the New York Times reports today.

The military's anticipated request for more troops to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan has divided senior advisers to President Obama as they try to determine the proper size and mission of the American effort there, officials said Thursday.

Leading the opposition is Vice-President Biden:

Leading those with doubts is Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has expressed deep reservations about an expanded presence in Afghanistan on the grounds that it may distract from what he considers the more urgent goal of stabilizing Pakistan, officials said.

No-one can plausibly argue that Vice-President Biden has no idea what he's talking about. Remember, this was the guy chosen to balance the ticket with "foreign policy experience," the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nor is Biden a pacifist or shy about foreign intervention. He voted for the Iraq war in 2002 and promoted U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

Secretary of State Clinton has been "vocal" in favor of more troops and some officials said they expected her to be an advocate for a more robust force, the Times says.

But Biden has the wind of public opinion at his back. A number of recent polls show that the majority of Americans - and the overwhelming majority of Democrats - now oppose the Afghan war. But on the question of sending more troops, public opinion is even more clear. They're against it.

McClatchy News reports, citing a recent poll:

56 percent oppose sending any more combat troops to Afghanistan, while 35 percent support sending more troops.

The McClatchy poll is particularly striking because it shows how widespread opposition to sending more troops is among different demographic groups:

Opposition to sending more troops also cuts across almost all lines, with the deepest opposition coming from women, young people, those making less money, people with less than a high school education, Hispanics and independents, followed closely by Democrats.

Only one group, Republicans, had a majority supporting the dispatch of more troops.

Women oppose sending more troops by the lopsided margin of 60-30, men by 52-40.

The biggest opposition to sending more combat troops comes from people who're 18-34 -- those most likely to fight -- and drops with age. Young adults oppose additional troops by a margin of 61-32; those who're 35-54 oppose it by 54-37; and those who're 55 and older were against it 53-36.

Similarly, those who make the least money were the most opposed, with those making less than $25,000 opposed by a margin of 70-27; those making $25,000-$50,000 opposed by a margin of 58-35; and those making more than $50,000 split, 45-45.

Since we're all about promoting democracy, let's have some democracy here. Since the American people are opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, let's not do it.

With the public opposed, with many in Congress deeply skeptical, with the Administration divided, we should be able to stop this.

Suppose that a bipartisan resolution were introduced in Congress against sending more troops. With the public clearly opposed, wouldn't such a resolution attract significant support? If such a resolution did attract significant support, wouldn't this affect the calculations of the Administration?

The first step to ending this war is stopping its escalation. Let Members of Congress - Democratic and Republican - hear from their constituents that they are opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

Comments

[ChampLessFuzzy]

04:56 AM on 09/06/2009

I'm with our vice president because I trust his experience, yes, but more importantly his honesty and motive...period. Understanding the region's changes over time is important. It has been said that Biden is more savvy with foreign affairs than the others combined. It's his years of having "boots on the ground" there, knowing leadership, people, and also the impact of it all on Americans. I believe the VP knows or senses a major shift of sorts in this region, if you understand Biden. Just listen.

The vice president was right about Pakistan being the bigger issue over Afghanistan well before anyone admitted Pakistan was problematic...no one I'm aware of in Washington DC listened to him. Biden continues to stand by his reasoning because. thankfully, the president wants the truth. But it also tells me something serious. Of anyone in Washington, Biden will give him the truth...I'm with Joe

[ezeflyer]

03:53 PM on 09/05/2009

This is a reminder to Obama to represent the people who put him there, not the corporate opposition.

[marignymitch]

03:08 PM on 09/05/2009

Thanks so much for writing, but good luck with the democracy thing, Mr Naiman. It doesn't seem to apply anymore in USA. In fact Americans have been betrayed by its leaders pretty much consistenty for the past eight years and counting. Americans want us out of Iraq; we're still there and counting, and we're not leaving. Americans want us out of Afghanistan; Obama is doubling down despite our economic meltdown. We're in for the long haul, believe it. Americans want health care reform with the public option; we're not going to get it. On the other hand the war and health insurance industries, the constituencies that count, are in high cotton. Our brave men and women in uniform not so much.

[greyhound2]

12:17 PM on 09/05/2009

It was the same in Vietnam. Popular support against the war. It didn't matter. The powers at large just continued sending more and more soldiers to their deaths for no reason at all, except maybe somebody's war chest bank account.

[bwiser]

11:52 PM on 09/04/2009

Dear President Obama,
I am in awe of the calm, poised, determined manner with which you have addressed the plethora of critical issues inherited from the reckless decisions of the Bush administration. Please keep up the good work, stand your ground, & know that the prayers of the believers can affect any situation.
Love to Family. Peace Be Still
Elena M Thomson
Roxbury, MASS

[Billy Hell]

10:03 PM on 09/04/2009

"Only one group, Republicans, had a majority supporting the dispatch of more troops."

So the administration will no doubt "reach across the aisle" on this issue too.

[americaforme]

08:31 PM on 09/04/2009

Like pouring sand down a rat hole is about what you get for Afghanistan. What make us think we are any better than Russia, who frittered away ten yrs., mega bucks, mega lives, and the worlds disreguard. We need to fess up to this reality. It was stupid in the first place. Mothers need to say, enough is enough and clear out of there. I dont want my grandkids playing war games, that are deadly. We all know this, who's kidding who? Obama is a smart guy, what's with all this victory stuff? We need to clean up our act at home.

[sayke]

03:10 PM on 09/04/2009

get a grip, people! we're trying to stabilize an incredibly delicate situation here - we need to prevent central asia from turning into west africa + nukes + takfiri fanatics... and the only way i can see to do that is via genuine, hard-headed nation-building. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: we need to make sure the power vacuum doesn't come back. we need to fill it with a government that can secure and provide for its people. if we don't, we're going to need a whole pound of cure, and if you think the ounce is expensive, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

bush thought we could just install karzai and leave. that's backfiring horribly. we need to get back to our marshall-plan/kosovo-style nation-building roots here, people. let's give the afghan people the resources and attention they deserved all along!

[Billy Hell]

11:15 PM on 09/04/2009

Interesting that you mention Kosovo in relation to Afghanistan. After all, the US supported Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was financed by heroin trade and trained by Osama Bin Laden. "Nation building" by the US there is questionable to say the least, considering the KLA was used to promote ethnic friction.

Another interesting Kosovo/Afghanistan correlation is the purpose of US intervention in Afghanistan, principally the control of energy distribution from the Caspian Sea.

[marignymitch]

03:19 PM on 09/05/2009

The situation at home is even more incredibly delicate. We're broke and we're irresponsibly, heedlessly spending ourselves into oblivion. We need to come home and mind our own abolutely vital financial business; it's a nation security issue. We owe it to ourselves and our young people. We just might be able to save ourselves by doing so, but we'll never save Afghanistan, which was never a national security issue in the first place. Just ask the former Soviet Union and British Empire.

[mexobserver]

01:01 PM on 09/04/2009

Yes let's have a healthy slice of real democracy here. I do consider a whole lot of decent U.S. citizens depend on employers related to Big Weapons Establishment. However, if according to master historian and social activist Howard Zinn, The United States' people have vindicated so many human and civil rights throughout history, why wouldn't you in the U.S. be able to turn your Orwellianly named Department of Defense (it has most often been used as Department of Offense), into an entity that genuinely served the interests and attainment of happiness of the U.S.'s people? I do wonder if, even gradually, it could be overhauled not to peddle more armament to the warlords but into sort of an effective instrument to give genuine aid & attain peace and good neighborhood, even while continuing to look out for threats from the outer world. OK if you think that's fantasy. However, Afghans don't want U.S. troops on their soil. More than 50% of U.S. citizens don't want more U.S. human beings sent there. What part of "They don't want more US troops to be sent to Afghanistan" is not being understood?