An Afghan policeman stands guard in Kabul today, as Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf pulls out of a planned meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai which had been hailed earlier this week as a step forward. (AP Photo by Farzana Wahidy.)
by Mark Silva
While a campaign debate over the question of U.S. intervention in Pakistan rages, a new Gallup Poll finds that a slim majority of Americans support the idea of the U.S. taking military action against terrorists there.
The poll also finds continuing support for the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan which started with the October 2001 U.S.-led invasion which toppled the Taliban regime.
While nearly six in 10 of those Americans surveyed by Gallup call it a mistake to send U.S. forces into Iraq, Gallup has found another picture in the public’s attitude toward Pakistan and Afghanistan – suggesting, perhaps, as some are arguing in the presidential campaign underway, that the U.S. has deployed its forces on the wrong front and “taken its eye off the ball’’ in the remote region along the Afghan-Paki border where intelligence says the terrorist organization al Qaeda has found “safe haven.’’
Sen. Barack Obama faces criticism in his campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for his assertion that, if Pakistani leaders won’t attack terrorists within their borders the United States should. He forcefully defended his stance last night in the debate of Democrats appearing before the AFL-CIO.
“Look,’’ Obama said, “I don't believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war that we should have never authorized and should not have been waged.. It has fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation in Afghanistan. We know right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And because we have taken our eye off the ball, they are stronger now than any time since 2001.’’
And Sen. Hillary Clinton just as forcefully criticized Obama for making statements that could undermine the stability of the shaky government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
“I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals,’’ Clinton said. "I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban….So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world.’’
Yet the newest Gallup survey suggests there may be an American audience for Obama’s argument.
The survey, conducted Friday through Sunday, shows that only 25 percent of Americans believe the U.S. made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, while 70 percent say the U.S. did not make a mistake.
“These percentages are essentially the same as they were when Gallup last asked the question in July 2004,’’ Gallup’s Joseph Carroll reports. “Shortly after the United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, fewer than 1 in 10 Americans said it was a mistake to send forces to Afghanistan.’’
The tables of public opinion have dramatically turned on that question when applied to Iraq: 57 percent now calling it a mistake.
As for the redeployment of forces that Obama and other Democrats are talking about, a majority of Americans support taking action to fight al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, either with additional U.S. troops (56 percent) or by moving troops from Iraq to the area (52 percent), Gallup found.
Asked what the U.S. should do if it had "actionable intelligence about terrorist operations in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government was not taking action against the terrorists," a slim majority of Americans -- 52 percent – said they would support the U.S. taking military action. Forty-two percent would oppose that.
For more on the survey of 1,012 adults, which carries a possible margin of error of 3 percentage points, see the Gallup Poll report.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
What Mark Silva doesn't tell you about the poll, but which is there for all to read: the 52% "slim majority" that would support US military action in Pakistan is mainly composed of Republicans, who basically aren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Obama's own Democrats oppose this measure.
The numbers: the 52% overall represents Republicans 61% in favor-33% opposed, Democrats 45% in favor-50% opposed.
Further, the numbers for what Obama actually proposed--military action whether or not the government of Pakistan approves--has far less support. Only 30% overall support this. Broken down by party, 37% of Republicans, and only 23% of Democrats, support what Obama actually proposed.
Posted by: Bruce | August 8, 2007 10:39 AM
Israel has a right to invade Lebanon, if the Lebanese government won't go into Hezbollah camps on the border, but Republics don't want us to go after the murderers of 3000 Americans if Pakistan won't assist on actionable intelligence. It's almost as if their objection to the idea is a kneejerk reaction to a Democrat with a plan.
Posted by: jethro | August 8, 2007 10:41 AM
When Bush was re-elected with a "slim majority" why couldn't the results be thrown out based on a 3% margin of error? If only. Instead, Bush acted on that victory as a mandate. Using the same GOP-logic here Bruce, these results are a mandate. Sorry. You lose. End of story. No more hyperlinks. Next.
Posted by: kb | August 8, 2007 11:12 AM
My gawd! Just when we thought it was safe to fly!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6936533.stm
Posted by: C.Morris | August 8, 2007 11:12 AM
"Sen. Barack Obama faces criticism in his campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for his assertion that, if Pakistani leaders won’t attack terrorists within their borders the United States should. " Swamp
Is this a pathetic effort to spin the truth in an effort to rehabilitate Obama. He faces criticism not for the principle that we should act if Pakistan won't. He faces criticism for unwisely spouting off about "acting" in effort to beef up his "hawk" credentials, thus politicizing the issue and destabilizing an already precarious situation. Yet another in many instances in which he runs to the head of a line that's already marching in a certain direction and acting as if he led from the start.
As Biden and others have said: As president you don't go around talking about doing this sort of thing. You just do it. Painting Musharraf into a corner by publicly taking him to task was just plain stupid, diplomatically and militarily.
Reading this blog, you'd think we don't already have troops on the ground in Afghanistan or that neither the current president nor other presidential candidates would take action in Pakistan if prudent. Neither is the case. The other candidates -- and, yes, even the president -- are just not dumb enough to go around publicly dismissing a critical ally as an "unreliable dictator" and blustering on hypothetically about such a sensitive topic.
Sorry, Swamp. You can't spin this one. The debate is not about whether to take military action against terrorists in Pakistan if prudent. The president and other candidates would. The debate is not about whether to deploy troops to Afghanistan. We've had troops in Afghanistan many years now. No, Swamp. The debate is about Obama's stupidity and inexperience.
This is not an "Obama and the American people on a different page than the current administration and other presidential candidates". Even the American people expect such action to be handled with great skill and diplomacy. Obama's comments over last several weeks evidence neither.
Posted by: Biggdawg | August 8, 2007 11:21 AM
Why does it surprise anyone other than Dubya that the U.S. should attack bin-Laden where he is hiding?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 8, 2007 12:03 PM
This whole question is based on the unlikely assumption that we will develop actionable intelligence in Pakistan and the incorrect assumption that we would all share a similar definition of just what intelligence is actionable. Hypothetical questions like "would you torture a terrorist if it would prevent an attack" or "would you drop a bomb on a terrorist in Pakistan" always oversimplify. They leave out the real-life drawbacks like torturing innocent people because we don't know who the terrorists are. How many innocent people should we torture to prevent an attack? Would you drop bombs in Pakistan knowing it might further de-stabilize the government there and possibly lead to a nuclear-armed islamic state? Hmmm, this president stuff isn't always as easy as it looks.
Posted by: Tom O | August 8, 2007 1:07 PM
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 8, 2007 12:03 PM:
"Why does it surprise anyone other than Dubya that the U.S. should attack bin-Laden where he is hiding?"
Well ... as Donald Rumsfeld said 'there aren't any good targets there.' Cheney, of course, only cares about propagating fear and discord, so he's all for war and bombing everywhere possible. He makes more money for defense contractors selling war rather than ending it.
It will be interesting to see if SecDef Gates has a better answer than Rumsfeld did.
Posted by: snalg | August 8, 2007 1:13 PM
Thanks Biggdawg you honestly made my day, and I thought I was nuts to think that what Obama said was over reaching.
Posted by: AR | August 9, 2007 1:09 AM
How do you just distort facts to support your own chosen one, even though they know very well that they are misrepresenting the facts. Also how come none of the writers ever answer any of the critiscisms from Bruce? THe only one that ever answers back is Zorn, and while he is a partisan hack as well at least he tries to answer back, even though it makes him look even worse. Keep up the good work Bruce. I beleive you were the one that challenged Zorn on his quoting the one poll that had Obama tied with HIllary as opposed to the 500 that had HIllary with a 20 point lead. At least Fox news admits that they are biased.
Posted by: Vinny | August 9, 2007 2:40 PM
So basically what a non biased journalist would conclude from this would be that only 23% of Democrats agree with Obama on the use of force in Pakistan w/out Pakistani approval. However that would not fit with the objective of this board. which is to make Obama look as good as possible and answer any critiscism of him. After all the dumb things Obama has done over the last few weeks how can anyone still believe this could is qualified to be President. The cartoonist in the Sun TImes had a great pic of Obama's security team basically doing everything to cover Obama's mouth to keep him from sounding so stupid.
Posted by: Vinny | August 9, 2007 2:45 PM
RESPECTD CHIEF EDITOR
CHICAGO TURBUNE.
WITH DUE RESECT IT IS BROUGHT TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT WHY SHOULD US IS GOING VERY HARCH AGAINST THE MUSLIMS ALL OVER THE WORLD.I AM NOT THE FAVOUR OF EXTREMISTS BUT YOUR COUNTRYIES POLICES ARE CRAETING THE EXTREMIST VERY SPEEDLY, AND THIS IS VERY DANGERIOUS FOR THE PEACE OF THE WORLD.IT SEEMS NOW THAT WORLD IS GOING TO VERY HEAVY DISTRUCTION.MY ADVICE IS THAT PLS STOP WAR IN AFGHANISTAN,ARAQ,AND STOP THE ISRAEELEES TERRIORISIM IN PALISTINE.AFTER THIS ALL TYPE OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISIM BECOME LED DOWN. YOU CAN TRY IT.NOW IT IS UP TO YOUR COUNTRY WHAT THEY DO BUT THIS IS A REALITY OF EARTH MUSLIMS CAN NOT BE PRESSED BY WEAPONS, AND WOR THREATS.
THANKS.
KHALID
MAHMOOD MALIK
Posted by: khaliD Mahmood Malik | August 15, 2007 12:50 PM