24 February 2009

Public Supports Obama Sending More Troops to Afghanistan

As you can see above from the Gallup poll, 65% of Americans approve of Obama's strategy in Afghanistan of plussing up the boots on ground by about 17K. This along with military cooperation with Pakistan and improved intelligence sharing is certainly a good start. With Pakistan's government cutting deals with the Tehrik-i-Taliban, an aggressive policy is needed sooner rather than later for a spring that could be ugly. Ironically, more Republicans support the President's foreign policy strategy than Democrats, which goes to show that most conservatives aren't morans who want Obama to fail. Failure in Afghanistan means more of our troops and allies getting killed and reverting back to a radical Islamic state to breed terrorists. Who the fuck wants that? So, in that case, yeah, I support the Commander-in-Chief. I suspect most conservatives who rail against Obama think the stimulus bill is a big pile of dog shit rather than his foreign policy, and polling supports that hypothesis.

8 comments:

Elizabeth said...

LT Nixon, (I guess you'll always be LT to me)

I'm just hoping that the strategy for Afghanistan/Pakistan involves more than just increasing the number of boots on the ground.

I mean, more troops are obviously needed, but what is the point if they are not backed up with a smart and muscular diplomatic/political component.

And, what is your take on what's happening in Iraq. Everyone and their brother seems to be ignoring it or saying that everything is coming up roses. I don't get it. There has been little or no progress toward a power-sharing agreement at the national level, despite the recent and "successful" provincial elections.

Let's assume that US forces will begin to be withdrawn sooner rather than later - what do you see happening if there remains no progress to resolve political differences among and between the various Iraqi factions?

Thanks, and great to have you blogging again!

Nixon said...

I fully believe in a strong national government with a strong military in Iraq. A civil society with strong law and order has the ability to quell ethnic-sectarian tensions, just like it does elsewhere. Maliki has shown that he is capable of managing this for the most extent, but they will have to tackle the crippling poverty in Iraq if it ever hope to be a prosperous nation.

Nixon said...

I have never said that Iraq is rosy...and I think you are creating a bit of strawman here. Maybe people were saying that in 2003-05, but you don't see it much these days. Prove me wrong, though.

Elizabeth said...

I didn't mean that you said anything rosy about Iraq. I'm hoping that the outlook for Iraq IS rosy.

I am just afraid that not enough will be done to make sure that happens. I expected more out of the Obama/BIDEN administration on a diplomatic/political strategy for Irag and Afghanistan by now - but that may be just me being impatient.

The last thing I would ever want to do is prove you wrong - I hope you're right about a strong central government because it looks like that's where we are headed.

Maybe Iraq will buck the trend and prove that they can make a strong central government work for all Iraqis. God knows, the people there deserve no less!

Elizabeth said...

...creating a strawman...

Talk about a phrase jumping off the page!

Maybe that's exactly what I've been doing here - it would sure go a long way toward explaining a few things...

olgreydog7 said...

Let's see what the polls say in a couple years. The numbers were better than that for Iraq in 2003.

Lisa said...

You know we differ on this one, LT.

But I must call you on this: "So, in that case, yeah, I support the Commander-in-Chief" -- In ANY case, you must support your C in C, yes?

Imee said...

I'm not so okay with this idea. Someone related to me is still out there & we want him to come home. :(