| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Afghanistan | |||||
| Americans' Faith in Afghan War Fades | |||||
| 2008-07-20 | |||||
| War Fatigue, Frustration Play Into Americans' Decreasing Interest in War The Pentagon and presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain all seem to agree on the need to send more troops to Afghanistan, but they are at odds with much of the country these days on the need to send more Americans into the lawless Afghan mountains. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found that a startling 45 percent of Americans said they do not think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting, despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which provoked the war in the first place.
For Sholom Keller, a veteran who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it comes as no surprise that support for the war in Afghanistan is fading. "I'm not shocked at all that American support is waning," Keller told ABCNews.com. "If we are in Afghanistan because the U.S. was attacked on Sept. 11, then I want to see the perpetrators captured and brought to justice. "If we're not finding them in Afghanistan, then I don't know why we're there," he added. "And if they are there I want to know why we haven't found them in the last seven years if they've been giving troops the right intelligence and missions."
Judith Kipper, the director of Middle East programs at the Institute of World Affairs in Washington, D.C., said that the gap in the numbers this year compared with those from 2002 is "tremendous" but still understandable. "It's battle fatigue," Kipper said. "American don't want war; they know it's costing a lot and the worse the economy gets at home, the more people feel a lack of confidence in their daily lives," Kipper said. "The less confident they feel, the less likely they are to support foreign wars and adventures."
"[They care] about the problems that they're facing on a daily basis," she added. The confusing nature of the war in Afghanistan and the failure to locate Osama bin Laden has contributed to American's already disillusioned vision of the war, Kipper said. "Americans know Iraq is near the oil and they know a lot about Saddam Hussein, but Afghanistan is the end of the earth for most people," she said. "It's a very confusing issue; why we're still there and NATO's involvement." But others -- the presumptive presidential nominees included -- believe that it would be worse to leave Afghanistan than stay, despite what the American public thinks. "With Afghanistan, the reality is that McCain thinks this is in our national security interest," said Brian Rogers, a McCain campaign spokesman. "People are frustrated with the lack of success and it's [the job of] the leader to make the case to American people as to why the fight in Afghanistan is a compelling national security interest." The Obama campaign said, "Sen. Obama supports this mission, as he does not make decisions based on polls." Charles Dunbar, the former head of the U.S. embassy in Kabul, told ABCNews.com that while violence had risen in Afghanistan as of late, there is some good news coming out of the region, too. Removing troops from Afghanistan now would only cause a larger terror threat in the future, he said. "The Afghanistan story is not all being told; there is much more success in other parts of the country," said Dunbar, who now teaches international relations at Boston University. "I do recognize that the occasional suicide bombings are going to happen, and that's the news that is understandably going to influence the American public. "This administration and the one that follows will need to make the case strongly that Afghanistan is a terrorist threat. "They need to restore [Americans'] faith in the war in Afghanistan, particularly because Pakistan is a place where al Qaeda and others who are absolutely irreconcilable in our efforts to come to terms with the Muslim world are surviving under present conditions," he added. Dunbar says he understands why Americans are losing faith in the U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, but still warns against allowing the problem to get even worse. "It can be argued that we can't control [what's going on in Afghanistan] and we have to get out, but then we just have a bigger problem area," he said. "Then we have just widened our problem." | |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 MSM: We lost at losing in Iraq, maybe we can suceed in losing in A-stan |
| Posted by: Gleng Protector of the Hemps8662 2008-07-20 19:39 |
| #15 I haven't forgotten about 9/11 and I've always supported a strong response, but I can't support the mission in Afghanistan anymore. We are not promoting freedom in Afghanistan (ideological deviation is punishable by death). Instead we're importing Sharia-restrictions for non-muslims in the west, which is what parts of the US military in Afghanistan are officially calling for since "Condemning the religion (Islam)...does not make the world safer from terrorism". (see HotAir) Whatever can be achieved in Afghanistan is not worth finlandizing ourselves, and that's exactly what's happening to us. |
| Posted by: Spaigum Panda2480 2008-07-20 18:52 |
| #14 You sure don't solve the communication problem by not doing a much, and seldom to never challenging the press daily in their false or bad reporting. Facts are Bush didnt even try to fight - he sat on his wimpy ass instead of using the bully pulpit. And I'm not jumping on the BDS Bandwagon - I've been critical of Bush's inability and lack of intestinal fortitude in communicating his positon. I've complained about this for a long time - "What good is the Bully Pulpit when all you're going to do is mumble?". With the press against you, you have to continue to hammer, continue to try, and continue to put the effeor in. Bush gave up, and I cannot forgive that at all. That's a huge fault, and one of the reasons Bush is seen as a failure by so many. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-20 18:39 |
| #13 A pity the journalist didn't ask a few military people or Rantburgers what they think. I suspect the percentages would be a bit less lopsided in the journalist's preferred direction. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-07-20 18:06 |
| #12 Robo06 proves that indeed you can have your own personal NUKES! :) |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-07-20 17:57 |
| #11 Hve you ever tried to get a conservative message to be carried to the public by liberal reporters? Can't be done. Fox and the blogs are the only way. If BO gets into the whitehouse, those two areas of conservative freedom of speech will be attacked with a vengeance. |
| Posted by: a yankee 2008-07-20 16:25 |
| #10 The media are elites, and as such, they 'deserve' to instruct the masses how to live. Todays pols are also elite, like Manbearpig, they know what is good and they will issue orders to us when applicable. Like Margaret Thatcher said, Conservatism has reality on it's side. Now, we should stop tolorating the enemy and eliminate him. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-07-20 14:37 |
| #9 What will happen to the MSM if a few column writers, and maybe an editor or two, were to pass away over a weekend's time, all by car accident or drowning or electrocution. Do you think the tone of these stories would change? I believe that the rest would be cr@pping their pants. Suddenly they wouldn't feel so anonymous, maybe they'd stop being so blatantly on the other side of this one. If not, several more should be invited to join the recently departed. As for you Old Spook, your jumping on the anti GWB bandwagon helps how? This president has never had the opportunity to shape the message. I'd even suggest that no president has had that power - if he was liked by the media of the day, his angle was presented - if not, then his angle was poo-pooed. Any time GWB has communicated to the country, he was followed up by some talking head - often of the Demo-rat persuasion, telling the audience that GWB was wrong and an idiot. The media knows just how powerful it is. They know what effect Cronkite's broadcast had. The nameless, faceless "They" want to have the same power, to have that kind of influence on American society - not for good or ill, but simply to have it. In their thinking, they can do no real harm. That is why I think several of them should have their mortal coils removed, to remind all that this game is serious. The stakes are high, and more than a few empires have fallen to the barbarians, because people with voices didn't appreciate the divisiveness they caused. |
| Posted by: Rob06 2008-07-20 14:16 |
| #8 Fighting in Afghanistan has always been like playing wack-a-mole. Ask the British and the Russians. I don't believe that the USA can afford a forever war. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2008-07-20 11:14 |
| #7 People are frustrated with the lack of success and it's [the job of] the leader to make the case to American people as to why the fight in Afghanistan is a compelling national security interest I agree. Lay this one squarely at the feet of George W. "Mumbler-in-Cheif" Bush. He has consistently bungled communicatiosn to the public about our successes, about our reasons, abotu the strategic realities. Instead he has let the MSM shape the public perception. He is an utter failure at the vital job of communicating the truth to the people, in the face of the hostile press. He's a wuss when it comes to standing PUBLICLY and bringing in the public on the things that count. Thank God we have Pelosi & Reid for opposition - Tip O'Neill would have eaten poor clueless George alive. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-20 11:09 |
| #6 If the Obamessiah winds up running the show, look for helicopters on the roofs of our embassies in both Baghdad and Kabul with a year. The Quislingcrats and their media sockpuppets are fifth-columnists and traitors, pure and simple. And when the next 9/11 happens, I really, really want to see journos hanging from lampposts across the entire country. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-07-20 04:50 |
| #5 No Heroin money; no Taliban. State Department wars are always lost. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-07-20 03:50 |
| #4 I agree the Afghan war is unwinnable in any reasonable timeframe and the West has no strategic interest there (unlike Iraq). Leave it to Pakistan, India, China and Russia to fight over. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-07-20 03:49 |
| #3 So to hell with it, just vote for universal health care and screw what happens halfway around the world. After all, 9/11 couldn't possibly happen again. I know this was said ironically but in point of fact, this is unfortunately how many Americans I know, perhaps more than half here in NY State, see the responsibility of government under the US Constitution. It has nothing to do with defending the USA and everything to do with helping them pay medical bills now that they've developed Type II diabetes through overeating. |
| Posted by: JDB 2008-07-20 03:07 |
| #2 Screw ABC. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-07-20 02:08 |
| #1 Afghanistan is a deep concern, because unlike Iraq, there may not be a way to win in Afghanistan, just create a stalemate. As long as Pakistan festers, Afghanistan will be destabilized by it. A Vietnam comparison is not entirely wrong, in several ways. Therefore it is of deep concern how we plan to leave Afghanistan, and do so in such a way that the Afghans can take care of themselves, against a murderous foe backed by a hostile government. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-20 00:19 |