do you support escalation of the war against Afghanistan?

[mike_c]

We read this morning that President Obama has given the orders to escalate the war against Afghanistan, initially by sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops in a phased 12-18 month deployment.

Many DUers have noted that this action is consistent with Obama's campaign statements. Others have countered that the situations in the U.S., Afghanistan, and the rest of the world have changed since the campaign, or simply that we know more about the truth of those situations now than we did then, and the truth on the ground does not warrant greater involvement.

My personal belief is that the war against Afghanistan has ALWAYS been wrong-- that it was begun in a national spasm of anger over 9/11 that targeted the Afghans unfairly-- to this day, we are not aware of a single Afghan being involved with the 9/11 attacks in any direct sense. More to the point, it's a war of aggression, and an international crime against humanity. Its primary reason for going on is that butt-loads of money are being diverted from the Treasury to the "defense" industry and the Pentagon. Perpetual war for perpetual profits.

But at any rate, whether Obama pledged to escalate the war or not, I want to know how many DUers actually support the escalation. How many support deeper involvement in Afghanistan, for whatever reason. The questions are simple and straightforward: do you support the escalation (and would you have supported it no matter what Obama said), or do you oppose it (again, regardless of Obama's campaign remarks). Is the war itself a good thing for America or a bad thing?

[bigwillq]

1. Oppose (nt)

[tekisui]

2. Shit no, I do not support it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. Unrec for loaded question nt

[mike_c]

8. would you please offer suggestions for improvement?

I really tried hard to make the questions as simple and straightforward as possible: Do you support sending additional troops and escalating the war or do you not? How is that a "loaded question?"

[Oregone]

12. Unrec for asking questions

You don't question in a time of war

[Kaleva]

48. LOL!

[JuniperLea]

21. Clearly you don't understand the situation in the Middle East...

When did we declare war with Afghanistan?

[mike_c]

26. ahh-- is this the basis for your objection below?

That the war is undeclared?

But Obama is STILL sending additional troops and escalating the conflict. Call it whatever you like. Rather than quibble over terms, can you tell us whether you support the escalation or not?

[JuniperLea]

62. I don't yet know his reasons or plan... nor do you...

We could at least wait for his explanation before bashing his decision.

[EFerrari]

72. I don't make a hobby out of Obama bashing but there is enough information

available to the public to know that sending troops into Afghanistan only benefits military contractors, not Afghanistan and not us.

[JuniperLea]

92. You don't know for sure that this is what's happening...

It could be that he's sending more troops to allow the rest, who have been there far too long, to come home, while he slowly and with much calculation, ends this damn thing.

Why is it so hard to wait for all the facts?

[EFerrari]

95. If that happens I'll eat my keyboard.

Obama has had a long, public drama with DoD where they are meant to look like the bad guys who want more troops. Somehow, I can't feature him giving a speech just to let us all know he's disappointing them. And framing a build up as a pull out will not fly.

[JuniperLea]

96. You might have to dip it in chocolate....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x26740

[EFerrari]

100. But that's exactly what I said and what others have predicted.

They're framing an escalation as a withdrawal.

And someone tell Clio the word is withdrawAl.

Whatever.

[mike_c]

74. the poll asks whether DUers support escalation or not-- irrespective of Obama's...

..."plans," although its a bit disingenuous at this point to refuse to acknowledge that he is escalating the war. It was reported this morning that the orders have been given.

The poll question is certainly NOT Obama-bashing. How could a simple yes or no question that asks DUers whether they support a policy or not be "bashing?" Is simple disagreement with the president now elevated to insult? You're either with us or against us?

[JuniperLea]

91. Bullshit...

Bullshit... bullshit... bullshit...

How do you know he isn't going to draw back the same number? Do you know his plans at all? NO, you don't. Pure conjecture... aka... bullshit. Even if it ends up that yes, this is an escalation, your preemptive naming as such is assumption, therefore, bullshit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. It's not a war "against" Afghanistan, and it's not "escalation"

Not that I am in favor of being there in the first place, but we never declared war, we are not there to dispose of the government.

[mike_c]

35. well, the additional troops are going SOMEWHERE...

...and we both know they're going to Afghanistan to fight against Afghans, so why quibble over terms? I'm happy to call it the "conflict" in Afghanistan if you prefer, although that implies that we have a legitimate beef with the people we're killing. That might have been true in 2002-- although I disagree-- but certainly most of the people we're killing now are not the folks who were in power then.

on edit: why do you contend that nearly doubling the troop strength is not an escalation? Oh, and we did in fact enter Afghanistan "to depose the government." We installed a puppet in its place, which we're now defending.

[Flaneur]

47. How is sending 34,000 additional troops "not an escalation"?

And yes, we went there to dispose of the government. Way back in 2001.

[JuniperLea]

64. When it's a calculated plan to get us out once and for all...

Do you know the plan yet? Does anyone? Save the tar and feathers until the man speaks... that's the intelligent thing to do.

[mike_c]

82. ahh-- the "fucking for virginity" argument....

Bombing for peace, escalating the war to end it. Destroying the village to save it. One only needs a "light at the end of the tunnel" to make all that sound exceedingly familiar.

[JuniperLea]

93. Bullshit... bullshit... bullshit, with a side of extra crispy straw man...

Please... save it.

[Individualist]

98. Hear, hear!

[Oregone]

54. "we are not there to dispose of the government"

Uh, yeah, isn't disposing of the Taliban one of the objectives? The Karzai puppet government we put in place is obviously what we are propping up as a replacement when they are disposed of.

[JuniperLea]

60. Plus we haven't heard Obama speak to this...

I think we should hold this current batch of tar and feathers until he actually gives us details, which he claims will cause us to agree.

[mike_c]

75. the poll is to solicit DUers opinions, not Obama's....

Again, there's no "Obama-bashing" here. I've made my personal opinions clear, but the poll is a simple yes or no, support or oppose. No rhetoric, no hyperbole. I'm sorry if I couldn't make it bland enough to suit you. I did try.

[JuniperLea]

90. Sorry, the poll is bullshit...

If not worded correctly. The fact that the United States of American isn't at war with Afghanistan is an important fact whether you think so or not.

[mike_c]

83. good idea-- let's give those arguments a week or so to sink in...

...and then I'll post ANOTHER poll to compare with this one. I think that's an excellent way of estimating the effectiveness of Obama's arguments.

Would you like to co-sponsor that poll with me? I've done that with other DUers before, on topics we disagreed about. the co-sponsorship helps to keep strong feelings from biasing the poll questions.

[JuniperLea]

89. I'm down...

PM me when you're ready... but keep in mind that with a world in crisis, crisis communications are at a premium, so I only check in here a couple of times a day. I'll make time to coordinate as best I can.

[mike_c]

94. no worries-- I'll PM in a week or so....

Thanks.

[Better Believe It]

65. Right. It's really ending the war, de-escalation and bringing the troops home! War is Peace!

[EFerrari]

67. The dishonesty, it burns.

The women and children of Afghanistan would probably disagree that this is not a war against Afghanistan. And sending in more troops is an escalation.

[Prometheus Bound]

70. Since the President calls it a 'war' over and over, I think we can call it a 'war'.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. we haven't 'declared' war against any nation since '41.

and yet we have fought the Korean War, the Vietnam War, a war against Grenada, a war against Panama, a war against Iraq, a war against Serbia, another war against Iraq, and a war against Afghanistan. By the way, of course we deposed (or 'disposed') the government of Afghanistan.

Formal declarations of war are not used anymore, our government has decided that they are inconvenient and avoids them. Clinging to that straw as the basis of an argument that we are not in a war in Afghanistan is silly. Claiming that increasing our military forces there is not an escalation is idiocy.

[Caretha]

113. Nail meet hammar

Reminds me of G. Stein quote...A rose is a rose is a rose.

[Zhade]

102. Rec against douchebags

NT!

[Posteritatis]

120. +1 (nt)

[mike_c]

4. would the folks voting "Other" please explain their meaning?

Thanks!

[old mark]

5. I don't see this as "escalation", if sending in 40,000 troops will enable us

to end this stupid endeavor.
What do you guys want - just turn out the lights and go home? It does not work that way - If the war ended yesterday, it would take at least a year to get everyone out and would onel stop US from fighting. The people there would go right on.

This war in Afghanistan is actually legitimate compared to the farce in Iraq.


mark

[mike_c]

15. you think the additional troops will end the war?

I must agree, if that were the case it might be a good idea. Presumably that's what many folks are hoping for. I'm not personally convinced that ending the war is actually on anyone's radar in Washington-- the military and the MIC don't profit from peace, and the money rolls in by the flatcar load during war, providing powerful incentives to continue ANY war, regardless of it merits.

But it seems Obama is going to send the troops, so I hope you're right about his motives.

[quiller4]

86. I do. I also think it will make troops in country marginally safer.

I've talked to a number of young GIs who recently returned. While most question our involvement in Iraq and support faster withdrawal, all supported sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Given the options he has before, I think Obama made the best choice. That isn't to say that I think any of his options were really "good".

[unabelladonna]

38. yes, it's time to turn out the lights and leave

we have more important things to do here in the US.

[old mark]

41. I agree with you there, but it won't happen that way.

FWIW, I hope you plan to vote in 2010, and Welcome to DU.

mark

[Warren Stupidity]

110. escalations are always to 'end the war'.

nobody escalates a war to get into a quagmire or to get defeated. The escalation is always justified as the route to peace. It remains an escalation.

[enlightenment]

6. I oppose and always have opposed.

High-pitched jingoism has never sold me on anything.

Too bad that you couldn't ask the corollary question in your poll: "Do you support escalation of the War simply because the current President is doing the escalating?"

I suppose that would be bad DU form, though.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Wonder how many escalation supporters would answer honestly, your question?

:evilgrin: For the record, I am opposed to this 'war' on Afghanistan and the escalation, no matter who is president.

[mike_c]

28. yes, it would be...

...and it would mix questions and muddle the answers.

One of the main reasons I'm conducting this poll is that I'm implacably opposed to the war in Afghanistan, but lots of recent DU posts have defended it-- largely, I think, for the reason you've suggested, but still. I'm curious to know whether the bulk of DU posters have decided to embrace the war, for whatever reason, or whether there is still majority opposition to it.

[enlightenment]

49. True.

Yours is the better set - I'm just cranky. Jingoism does that to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. It's also "consistent" with McCains campaign statements.

I didn't vote for him either.

[mike_c]

10. an excellent point....

eom

[Echo In Light]

9. Oppose militarization, period

[malaise]

85. +1 n/t

[Oregone]

11. But, but...he made a campaign PROMISE!

I want my blood covered pony and I want it now!

[Cant trust em]

13. I can't say that I do or do not support it.

I'm really conflicted about this whole endeavor.

I see the consequences of action and inaction very vividly.

[mike_c]

17. thank you....

I presume you voted "Other."

[newtothegame]

14. Yes, Obama made history in November 2008. He can do whatever he wants. n/t

[BeFree]

16. No

I think that the government has learned to listen to warnings and our own intelligence enough so that those dirty cavemen will never be able to buy a ticket to fly.

And that we won't allow them to learn how to fly jets right here in our own country.

Problem solved.

[JuniperLea]

19. Yeah... we should outlaw sarees just in case...

If you wear one I understand you can sneak into White House functions. Damn lot of good airport security is for the White House. But we're all safe... snug as bugs in rugs... no one here but us chickens...

[MilesColtrane]

20. You are assuming that Al Qaeda would reuse old tactics.

They're fanatics, but they're not stupid.

[BeFree]

25. So

What will they do the next time?

Are we smart enough to stop another attack?

[MilesColtrane]

42. 1) Nobody knows.

2) Some yes. Some no.

[JuniperLea]

18. War against Afghanistan?

I don't think you understand your own poll.

[mike_c]

23. please clarify....

Why do you object to the term "war against Afghanistan?" Afghanistan is the national entity we are fighting in and over. An alternative might be "war against the Taliban" or even "war on terror," but those are not really completely descriptive and both leave out the essential element that we're fighting AFGHANS, not just Pashtuns (the Taliban) or "terrorists" (most of the people we've killed are Afghan civilians).

[JuniperLea]

59. There is no war against Afghanistan...

Making your entire poll and premise ridiculous to even entertain.

[Flaneur]

63. Try telling that to the Afghans.

[JuniperLea]

66. Pointless statement...

Means nothing in the context.

[EFerrari]

69. Do you think our "smart" bombs only hit al Qaida "strongholds"

-- which are not present in Afghanistan at the moment.

How is this not a war on Afghanistan?

[JuniperLea]

88. This kind of thing helps no one...

There is no war with or on Afghanistan. Period. There are terrorist strongholds (allegedly) in Afghanistan, but the United States of America is not at war with Afghanistan. This is an important distinction whether you think so or not.

[EFerrari]

97. That's a distinction without a difference.

And there are no AQ strongholds in Afghanistan. They're in Pakistan.

[mike_c]

77. then WHERE are we spending all that money and sending all those troops to die?

I mean, come on. You've struck new lows of disingenuous-ness now! No war?

Is this all a semantic argument? That because congress hasn't declared war against Afghanistan, the conflict does not exist? Over 900 Americans and untold numbers of Afghans have died...- what? Hanging out on street corners in Kabul?

The war against Afghanistan is covered by the blanket presidential authorization to use "all necessary and appropriate military force against" countries the president deems were involved in the 9/11 attacks. I suspect you know that- it is, in effect, an illegal authorization to conduct open-ended aggressive war against anyone the president wishes-- and Bush used it to bomb and invade Afghanistan, depose its government, occupy it, and install a puppet regime. You might not consider that "war," but both the last president and the current president constantly refer to it as "war."

Sheesh. Is that the best argument you can find? It's not really a war?

At any rate, this thread is a POLL, and I presume you've voted in favor of escalation. Thank you for participating!

[closeupready]

22. Absolutely do NOT support, and nothing he says will change that.

n/t

[chill_wind]

24. No.

[immoderate]

29. No troops. Bring them home.

I've opposed military action in Afghanistan since Bush first proposed Operation Fuck Afghanistan (or whatever.)

--imm

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. I oppose all wars that are not in ACTUAL defense of the United States of America

And no such war has existed since August 1945.

[Sparky 1]

103. Thank you. Me too. Exactly.

[Turborama]

32. Other: I'm waiting to hear what Obama's strategy will be before I make my mind up

We're nearly there but we still have to wait until tomorrow to find out a definitive amount of troops and what he intends to do with them. We don't know yet whether he's decided to "escalate" the war, contain it or whatever else he's had on the table. :shrug:

[mike_c]

34. have you seen this post?

Thanks for your comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7115906

[Turborama]

43. Yes I have and that's why I said "definitive"

"The White House refuses to offer guidance on the exact number of troops who will be sent to the region"

And it doesn't say anything about the strategy, either.

You're welcome.

[StarfarerBill]

33. No, no, a thousand times, no.

[Octafish]

36. The USA resembles NAZI Germany more and more every day.

Apart from self-defense, there are no good reasons for war.

War on a people who never attacked us is illegal, immoral and unnecessary.

I expected better from President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress.

Who pulls their strings? Certainly not We the People.

[Echo In Light]

39. There's great potential for learning here, although I have my doubts...

[mike_c]

37. we're running about 5 to 1 in opposition to escalating the war, so far....

Unless this changes significantly, it confirms my earlier sense that DUers are largely opposed to escalating the "war", "confict," or whatever in Afghanistan (some respondents objected to the terms "war against Afghanistan" and "escalation").

It seems that the strong support I've been seeing lately for the war, and for escalation, is likely the work of a vocal minority here-- at least so far. Perhaps the poll results will change as the day goes on, but the sample size is getting large enough to suggest that it won't change greatly.

[Turborama]

44. Strong support? From what I have seen since I've been here, DU is strongly anti- the Afghanistan war

It'll be interesting to see the results of your poll but I think it's a bit premature seeing as the President hasn't actually announced what's happening yet. The current discussions and this poll are all based on a Talking Points Memo piece saying essentially that a decision has been made and people have been told. I don't know where they got the 30,000 from, they don't cite anyone in the article - not even "a source".

[mike_c]

45. I've had a number of discussions recently in which DUers expressed...

...either unambiguous support for escalating the war or simply support for President Obama's decision to escalate it, so I was curious about how widespread that sentiment is. As I said, my sense is that it's being expressed by a vocal, and vociferous minority, but data is better than assumptions! Hence the poll.

on edit: and someone is unrec'ing the hell out of this thread!

[Kaleva]

51. Poll results here can be trusted as much as any on line poll.

Which is not at all.

[mike_c]

52. is there another way to guage the sentiment of DUers...?

I recognize that polls like this have high error, but still, five to one opposed-- almost six to one-- is pretty suggestive, even if it isn't definitive.

[Kaleva]

56. Given the margin, I'd say the poll is pretty suggestive as you say.

[quiller4]

40. I don't see sending additional and necessary troops as escalation

I see it as Obama making a careful decision for the least worst option presented.

[yurbud]

46. he is not limited to the options presented to him--he's president.

[mike_c]

50. unless all the options are genuinely bad....

I mean, that's my suspicion-- our whole involvement in Afghanistan is so FUBAR that the only debate left is which bad option is least bad. That's what we're all arguing about, frankly-- terrible options. If we withdraw quickly and completely, as I advocate, the Karzai government will certainly fall, with all the death and destruction that normally attends coups, and the political disorganization that characterizes Afghan society will only exacerbate the outcome. The warlords and the Taliban will undoubtedly fight to fill the power vacuum.

I just think all the other options are worse-- I believe they will all lead to essentially that same outcome, but after even more death, cost, and crimes against humanity laid against the names of all Americans. It's ALREADY a civil war in all but name. We're walking directly in the footsteps of the Soviet failure in Afghanistan and our own failure in Vietnam.

[yurbud]

57. like Vietnam. Nixon continued the war for five more years then took the deal North offered LBJ

in 1968.

[mike_c]

79. an excellent analogy, IMO....

[Warren Stupidity]

111. It is a pretty simple word with a pretty clear meaning.

Attempting to avoid the clear meaning of the word is a very lame argument.

[Soylent Brice]

53. OPPOSE.

[Vidar]

55. I'm for immediate withdrawal of our troops there. Not being able to

fix our own corruption, we have no business propping up theirs.

[redwitch]

58. Oppose.

strongly.

[laststeamtrain]

61. We're not fighting a "war against Afghanistan". We prop up the bogus government of Afghanistan.

Your question shows you don't understand what's going on.

[mike_c]

80. I disagree....

Our current occupation is a direct continuation of the war. We bombed the county, invaded it, deposed its government and installed a puppet regime, which we are now propping up in the face of a civil war. Setting the semantics aside, that's war, my friend, in deed if not in declaration. And besides, the attack against Afghanistan is sanctioned-- dubiously, but nonetheless-- by the blanket congressional declaration of presidential authority to use "all necessary and appropriate military force."

Both the last president and the current president call it a war. Over 900 Americans and untold numbers of Afghans have been killed during the conflict, and billions of dollars spent. Its SOMETHING. It exists.

Now, do you support or oppose escalating IT?

[EFerrari]

68. Right on, Mike.

[leftstreet]

71. War is Terrorism with a Bigger Budget

[Echo In Light]

76. "Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society." — John Dewey

[Nikki Stone1]

73. Thoroughly and completely oppose, Professor Mike

No ambiguity at all.

[L0oniX]

78. FUCK NO! ...damn it all to hell ...fuckin stupid ass mutha fuckas

[mike_c]

81. still running nearly six to one opposed, with 1000 views, 138 votes, and 80 replies....

Oddly, the most vociferous support appears to come from folks who argue that, semantically, the action we're talking about isn't properly a war, and therefore sending 30K more troops isn't escalation. I'd respond that we bombed Afghanistan, invaded, deposed the government (such as it was in a largely feudal nation), and installed a puppet regime, which we now back in the face of what amounts to a civil war. Nearly a thousand American troops have died there, and untold numbers of Afghans. We've spent tens of billions, nearly all of it in support of military action.

That is war in deed, no matter what others want to call it. The former president and the current president call it a war. Semantics aside, the poll in the OP asks whether DUers support or oppose escalating it, regardless of what we call "it."

But it walks and quacks like a war.

[Eyerish]

84. OPPOSE

[rollingrock]

87. Excellent question

for the record, I voted NO.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

99. Hell No!

[Cid_B]

101. Self delete...

[donheld]

104. Oppose strongly!

[barbtries]

105. i'm with you

i've been against these wars since before they began and remain so.

[yodoobo]

dup

[yodoobo]

106. Other - I Support Obama's decision

Even though I don't agree with it personally.

This is a man that we have placed our trust in and I will continue to do so until such time thats it clear we shouldn't.

With the information that I HAVE, I would bring home our troops.

However Obama has access to far far more intelligence than little old me and I trust his decision making ability.

Afterall, this is a man who has delivered us from the worst depression since the Great depression, is well on his way to delivering healthcare to millions who never had it before, and has completely turned around our world image.

I'm nervous about Afghanistan, but I stand by our President.

As a matter of fact, its something we should ALL do, regardless of how you feel about Afghanistan. Obama will need us now more than ever to stand beside him.

It's the least we can do.

[Skittles]

107. whatever you are smoking, please pass me some

[gleaner]

108. I chose "other" ...

I am opposed to sending additional troops to Afghanistan and I would like to see all foreign and US troops pulled out of Afghanistan immediately. I would like to see all of the troops in Iraq come home immediately as well. There is no reason for either of these wars.

[hayu_lol]

112. Go back to basic English...

The President is merely REINFORCING our current force in Afghanistan. That is not an escalation. Escalation is what happened in Nam.

[gleaner]

115. Thanks for your concern ....

But my English is fine. The definition of the word "escalate" follows:

es·ca·late (sk-lt)
v. es·ca·lat·ed, es·ca·lat·ing, es·ca·lates
v.tr.
To increase, enlarge, or intensify: escalated the hostilities in the Persian Gulf.
v.intr.
To increase in intensity or extent: "a deepening long-term impasse that is certain to escalate" (Stewart L. Udall).

I believe that this definition applies in this situation. By the way, I lived through Viet Nam. I understand very well what escalation meant then, and it means the same thing now.

I recommend that you read further about Viet Nam and compare it to Afghanistan. I think you will see many similarities between the two.

Also, I do try to address others on this board with respect. They deserve it. They are intelligent, aware people who are trying to make things better. We don't always agree, but that doesn't change the need for respectful and thoughtful discussion. This is the way I choose to be addressed, and in the future if you want to discuss anything with me I would suggest you try it. It makes a world of difference in the quality of discourse.

[RedCloud]

114. War! Good God you all. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Say it again.

[DesertRat]

116. War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes

When their sons go to fight
and lose their lives.

War! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War! Friend only to the undertaker
War! It's an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind

[mdmc]

117. --

[Swamp Rat]

118. Oppose, unless the 30k troops are used to help facilitate an immediate withdrawal.

I hope that Obama is really doing this, and will not stay in Afghanistan until the summer of 2011.

I hope.

[xiamiam]

119. good to see this..i was beginning to think du had become an unrecognizable site..

which it has in some ways..the escalation is widely disapproved outside of here just couldn't figure out what was going on here...