Oof: 57% now oppose war in Afghanistan
posted at 4:10 pm on September 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
Two weeks ago, 51 percent said the war wasn’t worth fighting. Now this. I’m not worried yet — the left won’t upset our savior by pounding the table and Obama won’t lightly betray his core campaign promise on foreign policy — but if ObamaCare ends up watered down and Afghanistan still looks bad next year, he’ll need to throw them a bone. And with the polling already this bad, he’ll have all the political cover he needs.
Like Politico says, if and when he does pull out, except it to be framed as a cost-cutting measure. Because he’s all about trimming those deficits, you see.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, with 42 percent supporting the military mission. The percentage of those in opposition to the war is up 11 points since April, and is the highest ever in CNN polling since the launch of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001…
“Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war. Seven in 10 Republicans support what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Democrats mildly opposed the war in April while independents and Republicans favored it. But opposition has grown 18 points among Democrats and 10 points among independents.”
The poll suggests that nearly six in 10 think the U.S. can win the conflict in Afghanistan, but only 35 percent questioned in the survey say that American is currently winning the war.
An 18-point drop in just four months, before Obama and McChrystal have had a chance to try a new strategy. A cynic might conclude from that that the left’s support for “the good war” was soft all along and finally collapsed at the very first moment when it would no longer hurt them politically. No wonder the Pentagon’s getting nervous about The One’s commitment:
“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier,” a senior Pentagon official said. “We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”…
Pentagon officials said that White House officials have told them they fear that McChrystal’s expected request for more troops won’t be his last.
The additional troops are “only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that,” said another senior military official, who said that’s true in part because estimates of what the Afghan forces can do and when they’ll be fully capable of handling security threats are being downgraded.
Withdrawing would be the foreign policy analog to Obama’s interrogation policy: It’ll please the Hopenchange brigades and be tolerated by the cautious middle so long as there’s no trouble, but if the country’s hit again by some outfit based in Afghanistan, the public will turn on him viciously. From a political standpoint, he’s better off hanging in there until 2012, secure in the knowledge that the GOP won’t fault him for it and that lefty opposition will, in all likelihood, be manageable. And from a foreign policy standpoint, the last thing he’d want to do is give the Pakistani Taliban a safe place where they can regroup and eventually re-threaten Islamabad. He’s not going anywhere, in other words. For now. Exit quotation: “There are few things more toxic for effective civil-military relations in wartime than the military believing that their political commanders are not serious about seeing the conflict through to a successful conclusion.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Ann:
Do you realize how many millions of Americans are without insurance not because they can not get it, but because there is something else that is more important to them. As for the people who honestly can not get any kind of help…I am sure we can do something for most of those people without this power grab the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats.
However, defense of the country is something that government is actually supposed to be doing.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
All I can say is..my cousin has been in Iraq twice. He is now in Afghanistan. He said Iraq was cake walk in comparison. He says that it is way worse in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq. He is a Ranger so I believe what he says.
It’s time for a new strategerie.
kareyk on September 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
So obviously the answer is to make someone else pay for it rather than use entrepreneurial skill to create more jobs and do for ones self.
After all, when everyone is on the government tit and nobody pays taxes, we can just PRINT more money, eh?
Spiritk9 on September 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Hey! Nice use of that freedom of speech that our military fight to protect. Impressive.
/
Idiot.
ladyingray on September 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Hawk, stay safe. I appreciate what you and your guys are doing.
ladyingray on September 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Spirit:
No, most of the intel we use comes from people on the ground. If we pull those folks out of there, where do we get the intel? After all, most of our allies will probably be dead.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:55 PM
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM
I am so sorry now that your battle isn’t just with the enemy
in Afghanistan it has now become your battle to win the war at home. Gods speed to you and all who serve.
fourdeucer on September 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I will say one thing, it is too bad the Native Americans in this country did not have to deal with the American people who are here today rather than the settlers and ranchers they did face. People today would say they were just too crazy and too scary and too hard to fight.
Best to cut our losses and go back to England.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:57 PM
The “Brass” don’t seem to agree with you. They seem to think it’s not about terrorists going after America.
The war in Afganistan, in case you didn’t know, in the words of Gen Stanley McChrystal, is “a struggle for the support of the Afghan people.”
And you probably thought it was a hangover from the war on terror. Nope. We are now waging a campaign whose strategic priority (if you can call it strategic) Gen. David Petraeus calls “first and foremost … a commitment to protecting and serving the people.” And that would be the Afghan people. And no this is not the Peace Corps talking. This is the military’s way of explaining what Gen. McChrystal calls a “holistic counterinsurgency campaign.”
Holistic? There’s more. Going pretty zen for a Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen puts it this way: “It’s not about how many enemy we kill; it’s about how many civilians we protect.” (And when you can snatch the pebble from my hand …)
It’s also about how many civilians we pay. (Plus ca change, looks like ….) Still digging into the “civilian casualties” scam on which our war policy non-sanely turns, I came across this little-noted news from SecDef Gates, as reported by VOA in May:
Working to minimize civilian casualties has been a major initiative for Secretary Gates. He established a policy last year under which the U.S. forces are even more careful about their targeting, and pay reparations to families even if the cause of casualties is not clear. On Thursday, he reported that Afghan civilian casualties have fallen 40 percent since January, while casualties among coalition and Afghan troops have risen 75 percent.
Topsy-turvy worldwatch:
1) Stupid war goal: Minimize civilian casualties in order to win hearts and minds and unicorn and rainbows and … Dream on, holistic ones.
2) Further restrict US troops’ ability to defend themselves.
3) Pay money to casualties’ “survivors” “even where cause of death/injury is unclear, thus creating Afghanistan’s only growth industry since opium.
4) Report to Senate that civilian casualties have fallen 40 percent while US-led coalition casualties have risen 75 percent without a paper bag over head.
5) Expect (receive) pat on back, not demand for resignation.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:57 PM
MB4:
I don’t get that post. That has nothing to do with what I said.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I’m actually shocked, because I thought the war was unpopular all along.
Emily M. on September 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Where would Special Forces and Air Assets base out of to strike like you’re talking about? Where do I refuel? Do I base out of Pakistan and strike into RC West from there? I can’t without a FARP to get gas and rearm.
You folks that think there are simple answers for fighting here are as far off base as you can be.
We are killing Taliban. We are interdicting their drug and weapons trafficing. We are killing their leaders and in some cases we are still taking their leaders prisoner.
Stay behind us. Don’t go soft on the war just because we have a weak CinC and don’t lose faith in our ability to win in spite of him.
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM
The point is if we just leave or cut back the Pakistanis would like nothing better than to just run those people right back into Afghanistan. They don’t care if they are over there making trouble, just so long as the Pakistani military does not have to deal with it. That is how it used to be.
The fact that the military tries to minimize civilian casualites does not in any way change the fact that the enemy is not going to just go away because we are tired of them and don’t want to have to do this war thing anymore.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM
hawkdriver:
I guess they think the Pakistanis would let you sit up house there.
I doubt if they have ever really thought about the geography of this at all.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM
So where are the Afghan “settlers and ranchers” and if our “settlers and ranchers” did not need tens of thousand of foreign troops to fight Indians, why do the Afghan “settlers and ranchers” need them to fight the Taliban?
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
hawkdriver,
Great to see you here again. Y’all got Baitullah Mehsud, which was a huge blow to the enemy. Keep the faith, and sock it to the Haqqanis next!
Christien on September 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM
MB4:
My point was that their culture was so different it really did scare people. And the only reason they lost and we won, is that we outnumbered them and we did not give up.
Today we probably would.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM
And MB4, the thing that really scares me is that if we just wash our hands of this conflict because we don’t like sharia law or something…that will do nothing to stop the enemy. It will not slow them down in the slightest. They will only come back and strike again and then young men like hawkdriver will have to go in and fight a stronger and better equipped enemy who has had time and opportunity to rebuild their numbers and make themselves even more dangerous.
The Taliban and AlQaida are not going to go away that easily.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Au Contraire. It’s the central point that no one in our government dare speak of.
Fletch54 on September 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM
And MB4:
It took us centuries to conquer this continent. We have been in Afghanistan for a few years and already people are ready to leave. And a lot of Afghans have died over there and continue to die every day. It is not as if they are not in this fight as well.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
(Right on everything except I’m old.)
Older…
I’m 50.
(But still kicking ass)
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Fltech:
What difference does it make if they speak of it or not? Do we simply sit back and ignore a billion people because we dislike their religion? Do we assume that every Muslim on the planet is our mortal enemy? And yet we can not fight a war like this in which the casualty numbers are less in the entire conflict than we lost in the Battle of the Bulge or a dozen other conflicts?
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Ann,
Your pals can BUY insurance. You do know that?
Sapwolf on September 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM
hawkdriver:
Hey, I am 57, you are a mere boy to me. You whipper snapper you.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
For a short time we lived quietly. But this could not last. White men had found gold in the mountains around the land of winding water. The white men told lies for each other. They drove off a great many of our cattle. Some branded our young cattle so they could claim them. I only asked of the government to be treated as all other men are treated.
Hinmahtooyahlatkek on September 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Hey Hawk, stay safe and kick a$$! We’re behind you!
HornetSting on September 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Ann, you have taken stupidity to a new level. Please get yourself to the hospital. I believe your brain has finally rotted out.
HornetSting on September 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I wish I could tell you sll the regional leaders we get that don’t make the news.
Keep the faith folks. We can win even with obama and McCrystal trying to tie our hands.
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Well why not conquer Australia then? They’ve go much better looking women and much better beer, a better climate and no Sharia.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Hinmahtooyahlatkek:
I am descended from Cherokee myself. Of course a lot of people are.
I think that when white people came here, they saw a huge continent with very few people living on it. It seemed to them there was plenty to go around. The conflicts came later.
But then again, the Spanish and the Brits were very different in their conquest and their intent. The French just wanted to trade.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
MB4:
I tell you what, if some crazy terrorists sit up camps and use Australia as a place to train people to launch attacks against Americans all over the world, then maybe we should.
But I do not see that happening.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM
You’ll be added to the prayer list, Hawkdriver.
Kill as many bad guys as you can.. I am grateful.
kareyk on September 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM
I practically predicted this after the whiners no longer had Iraq to whine about.
Red Cloud on September 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM
As I already said, most AlQ are not in Afghanistan and what is going on there is not mostly directed at AlQ anymore. Since the invasion of Afghanistan the mission has dramatically changed into something very different, namely Islamic “nation building” a government with a Sharia law constitution. It has gone beyond “mission creep” to “mission transmutation”.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM
The war will be one in villages…where the real war happens.
tomas on September 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
won
tomas on September 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Well said! We take the fight to them.
By any chance, do you know an Apache pilot named Buzz? He’s a family member deployed to the sandbox right now.
conservative pilgrim on September 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Hawk, don’t get me wrong. I support you guys a million percent and if I could be there with you, I would be.
Your questions and my comments (my comments out of logistical ignorance) are exactly why I say the boys in charge on the ground ought to be given the authority to fight the war as they see fit, otherwise the only thing left is either leave or fight the way I said, basically remotely and using special ops.
I’d much prefer we leave that toilet to the cockroaches that live there, but again, I’d rather see us fight our enemies on foreign soil, not here. We already have plenty of enemies here that we haven’t begun to fight….yet.
I’ll support whatever NON liberal NON socialist generals over in the heat of the battle have to say, not what the fascist in chief has to say.
Either way Hawk, I’m with ya and I want you home in ONE big piece, not a bunch of little ones. Be safe and WIN.
Spiritk9 on September 1, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Read it again, I didn’t say HE was doomed, I said he was more then capable along with his “brothers/sisters”…it is Obama who I don’t have faith in.
You know it is hard enough to post something so brutally honest, without being misquoted.
If you think Obama is a great leader, if you think he is up to the job, great.
I don’t think he is, and because of that, if he continues lives will be lost.
Not because you think our men are weak, but because I think our leader is weak.
You and I have a different opinion, you think Obama is a legitimate CINC…I don’t.
Don’t project your insecurities onto me…you own them.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Next time take some time and read my post…if you think Obama is a great commander, good for you…I think he doesnt’ have the experience, or the knowledge, as I stated in my post.
No matter how good of soldiers you have, if they are political pawns, they end up not where you (well maybe you) where I want them to be.
I lost too many great friends in a war we should have won, because we had miserable politicians running the war…many great men died, so our “leaders” could continue leading.
Our soldiers would die to protect our political leaders, and the political leaders are all too often more then happy to oblige…if it keeps them in power.
That’s where Bush was the strongest…he backed our great men, and took the heat…you may think Obama will do the same…don’t count on it.
So you do have freedom of speech to support your Obama…and I have mine to speak out against him…both of you are full of yourselves for supporting Obama.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Or lost in the voting booth…where Nam was lost…
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Agreed, but a liberal is a liberal…and I don’t trust them.
You I trust, along with several brave marine family members…with my life.
But I don’t trust the CINC…and it looks like I am in the minority on that one.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Nam was lost in the White House around 1966, when LBJ bragged our guys couldn’t bomb an outhouse without his say-so.
Nam was a Democrat war and it took Nixon to end it. Well, the shooting part, at least. What happened later, and the Mayaguez Incident, were direct results of a Dem Congress. The people, the American middle class, gave up on Nam once they realized Washington–in the persons of LBJ and his Dem friends–had no desire to win. If they did, we’d have been cleaning up the mess and rebuilding both Vietnams by 1968.
Liam on September 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM
That’s two of us in that minority.
Liam on September 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM
I’ve been to Iraq twice and am preparing to go to Afghanistan. A lot of my buddies have already served there. Nothing like Iraq. I don’t mind going over there, but I really don’t see any reason to be nation building. We’re not even looking for Bin Laden anymore. Let those 7th century savages have their country. If they want to use it as a terrorist base again, guess what, we make their country glow green for the next 100 years. I see no reason for more dead Marines to save savages that will never change their way of thinking.
RightXBrigade on September 1, 2009 at 8:25 PM
right2bright-Maybe you should learn to read. I have never at any point said that I support Obama. Just because I think you are a putz, does not mean I support Obama. Maybe you should try not projecting.
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 8:27 PM
The man that said he would put all efforts on this war because they were the ones that bombed us, that he would defeat the Taliban and kill or capture Ben Obama is bowing to the muslim world. The baby killer can’t take it. Michael Moore’s crowd is forsaking him. The folks don’t lust over Michelles big arms and thighs anymore. At least this makes him consistent in that he has lied to everyone about everything. Greatest evah, HA HA HA HA HA HA
puke, fart ha ha ha ha ha
bluegrass on September 1, 2009 at 8:31 PM
DIRT doesn’t matter. You don’t defeat a trans-national terrorist organization by occupying medieval villages.
Yesterday, President Obama presented his “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was neither new, nor a strategy. Behind all the rhetoric, he just said, I’m sending more troops and more money.
Barack Obama? I heard Lyndon Johnson. The only LBJ touch that BHO lacked was the word “escalation.”
- Colenel Ralph Peters
I think we are both in a loop.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM
No, it was that my post was supporting the troops, and dissing the president…you didn’t like it.
You never said “why”, so an obvious observation was that you either disagreed with my assessment of the troops being capable, or my assessment of Obama being incapable.
Those were the only two real statement I made, I thought the troops were capable, and that the president would put them in harms way.
You didn’t like what I posted…but now you agree with me?
You agree that are troops are capable
And you agree our president is not capable
Imagine how you feel now, after actually reading what I posted.
You may not have lost loved ones during a war, I hope not, but I did, a war fought by politicians.
Where bodies were used as a way to get votes…yeah, in your face gross statements…but deal with it.
Obama and the liberals don’t care how many bodies there are, just how many votes are there? A brutal reality.
Now you tell me, on my original post, what you don’t agree with me on…
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM
A curious blend of third-grade civics and sour grapes. “Congress and the President did what they had to do, and we didn’t wanna win that swamp anyhow.”
Chris_Balsz on September 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Circa 2012:
Just about three years ago I set out on Obama’s Afghanistan road,
Seekin’ my fame and glory, lookin’ to turn the mullah’s hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.
Flew in on a big plane, I hope I’ll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was just passin’ through, must now be yet another 2 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience, looks like they took more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.
The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, a one year stand, looks like the plans fell through again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.
Mmmm…
If I only had a woman, for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while Boy Emperor Obama sat back home power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.
- CCR
Soldier BoyMarineMB4 on September 1, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Thanks, and the brutality of a politician allowing our finest to lay on the battlefield so they can use those bodies to garner votes is disgusting to me…but obviously not to others.
Obama stated that our soldiers were killing innocent people, nothing is more disgusting to listen to than that one statement.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Here is another poster you can attack for basically saying the same thing as me…go ahead and attack him also, be consistent.
I don’t want any of you to die, for a cause to support someone who thinks your life is expendable for his well being.
My hear cries out to the thousands that were “used” by politicians in other wars…and yet one of the most noble, the freedom of Iraq, is spat upon by these idiots who now want to duplicate what was done under a real leader.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM
If you cannot see anything wrong in your original post, I am not going to draw you a picture. You are not worth my time or effort.
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 8:54 PM
We can’t pull out. Obama needs to listen to his generals. McChrystal is a very competent commander; when he says he wants more troops, you better damn well give him those troops! He essentially wants to do what we did in Iraq, capture and hold territory instead of staying on the FOBs (The Unforgiving Minute has an excellent anecdote about a typical deployment to Afghanistan, most of their time was spent on FOBs). And to do that he needs over 100,000 troops.
McChrystal’s report and the recent report by Micheal Yon have given us a very ominous sign. This coupled with the fact the Obama administration seem apathetic about the GWOT (re:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26073.html) and the precarious situation in Afghanistan.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 1, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Let’s estimate what it will take in lives and treasure, then decide whether that is a cost that we are willing and able to bear. Seems almost biblical.
exdeadhead on September 1, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Exactly. Too many people are looking for an easy escape. This isn’t WW1 or WW2, where one side wins everything and the other loses everything.
This is a “small war” where we fight for smaller objectives. The worst possible outcome of the war in Afghanistan is to look like we threw in the towel. They think we’re a “paper tiger.” They think we’ll give up and go home. If we do, then we confirm to the terrorists that terrorism works, and we’ll never be rid of it.
In other words, quitting Afghanistan would be just like paying Vikings the Dane-geld. It gets you off the hook for the moment, but next year they know how to get more. It would be like paying ransoms to pirates: cheaper at first, but very expensive when the pirates decide to strike again and again. It would be like negotiating with terrorists: you save yourself trouble this time, but now you’re a target forevermore.
There is plenty of room for rethinking the war in Afghanistan. Rethink tactics, rethink strategy, rethink goals. But any rethinking that involves giving up is a Very Bad Idea!
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 1, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Other words, you re-read it and found out it wasn’t what you thought, and now you are backing away.
And of course,RightXBrigade on September 1, 2009 at 8:25 PM, said basically the same thing…want to attack him also?…I didn’t think so.
You may not care, but I don’t want our best to be left on the battlefield because some bozo doesn’t understand how to lead…how many family members did you lose in Viet Nam?
And I don’t care if the “in your face” offends you, some reality sometimes is what people need to realize, there will be dead men, needlessly lost, because of an insecure, inexperienced, ignorant CINC, who is controlled and surrounded by far left interests.
But you worry that I was, well I still don’t know what you are upset about, it is a secret.
Here’s a hint…worry more about the men that will be lost because Obama doesn’t know what to do, then if you think I’ve been offensive…sheesh, get your priorities straight.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 11:57 PM
How much did 9/11 cost us?
How strong will our economy be if we get hit again?
Because nothing will paint a target on our backs like running away from a war. The only reason we haven’t been attacked for 8 years — in spite of all the other hard work by the Bush administration — is that we took the fight to the terrorists. They were too busy fighting us there to be able to attack us here.
The 9/11 attack damaged our economy. It hurt the airline industry severely. There is a cost associated with these terrorist attacks, and it’s higher than the cost of defending ourselves.
As cliched as you may think it, we can’t afford to NOT fight this war.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM
We won in Vietnam. That is, we hit the North Vietnamese so hard they came to the peace table, and we stood up the South Vietnamese so they could stand up against further attempts by the North Vietnamese. And we offered two more things to support the South Vietnamese before we left: air support, and funding. With those two items, they could keep their Communists at bay.
Then Nixon resigned due to Watergate, and the Democratic Congress broke the pledges we had made in ending the war and bringing our troops home.
We didn’t lose Vietnam. It was so much worse than that. We took our promised air support and funding, gave South Vietnam a look, and said, “You’re on your own.”
One of the most shameful things in foreign policy we ever did, and it was not done by any president, but by Congress
A Democratic Congress.
I don’t want to see history repeat itself.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Americans will not put up with a Hundred Year War especially one where the tail is waging the dog.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 12:42 AM
The shameful lies that the American people were told about Vietnam over it’s very long and costly length made all but inevitable the backlash against it. The lesson is that if one wants to win a war don’t pick one with limited importance to America and then repeatedly lie to people about the progress being made.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 12:58 AM
One must be as a Lion to frighten off Wolves, but as a Fox to avoid traps.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
The wise man does now what the fool does finally.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
The main reason to stay on and on in Afghanistan, it has already been 8 years, is hubris.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 1:07 AM
That backlash is more myth than fact. There was a whole cottage industry pushing the idea that the American public didn’t support the war. Public support for the war was a whole lot stronger than most knew.
McGovern ran as an anti-war candidate. Nixon ran by saying we would end the war without losing it. Nixon won in one of the biggest landslides in history. Apparently, the public was not so anti-war as it was claimed.
I’d say the first lesson of Vietnam is to make sure Democrats are never in charge of a war. Unfortunately, it’s too late to prevent that now.
Which brings us to the second lesson: if you’re at war, and the Democrats are in charge, don’t let them get away with cutting and running.
I’d also note that this is only true of the Democratic party since Vietnam. Previously, Democrats could be trusted to see a war through.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 2, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Classic….
Hussein told his Kool Aid sipping supporters how wrong Iraq was and then vowed to end the war! Great, Hussein won the election and begin to shift focus off of Iraq and onto Afganastan WTF?
pssssst: I heard they want to increase the troop numbers.
Support our Troops ……. Remember to Vote in 2010
BigMike252 on September 2, 2009 at 1:32 AM
I think the hubris is believing you can spare our enemy out of weakness and live to cherish your own cleverness.
Chris_Balsz on September 2, 2009 at 1:35 AM
If the goals are wrong in Afghanistan, set better goals. If the strategy is wrong, correct it. If the tactics are wrong, consider why, and correct them.
If your only idea for dealing with Afghanistan is to quit, you just might be a modern Democrat.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 2, 2009 at 1:37 AM
But that is the point, and my last one tonight…the person responsible for this “rethinking” is the CINC, the president, you may think he is qualified, I don’t.
So you are willing to place our military men’s lives, in the hands of this president, knowing full well that he cannot manage a war.
Would you march to war with Obama as your leader?
It is easy to say, don’t quit…but the alternative may be a huge loss of life…and still lose.
He isn’t in this war because he understands war, he is involved because he understands politics. Do you thing he and his buddies like Chavez, care that Afghan is free?
right2bright on September 2, 2009 at 2:55 AM
Really, I think that if your only idea is to follow this president, then you are a radical liberal democrat.
right2bright on September 2, 2009 at 2:57 AM
By no later than 1971 there was little support in the Army ranks for the war. Very little.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 3:25 AM
“Despite scores of books on the subject, the why and how of direct U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War remained unclear. When I began research as a graduate student in 1992, I found much of the available literature on the escalation of the Vietnam War contentious and based largely on conjecture. The role of senior military advisers in decisions that led to war was particularly obscure. Only until recently has the full record become available. Recently declassified documents, newly opened manuscript collections, and tapes of telephone conversations between President Lyndon Johnson and his closest advisers made it possible to tell the full story. What I found astonished me. Much of the conventional wisdom associated with Vietnam was highly inaccurate. Far from an inevitable result of the imperative to contain communism, the war was only made possible through lies and deceptions aimed at the American public, Congress, and members of Lyndon Johnson’s own administration. Contrary to Robert McNamara’s claims of ignorance and overconfidence during the period 1963-1965, the record proves that he and others were men who not only should have known better, but who did know better. These men and the decisions they made during those crucial months mired the United States in a costly war that could not be won at a cost acceptable to the American public. I wanted to answer the question of how and why Vietnam became an American war. It was during the period from November 1963 to July 1965 that Lyndon Johnson made the critical decisions that took the United States into war almost without realizing it. The decisions, and the way in which he made them, had a profound effect on the conduct of the war and its outcome.”
- H.R. McMaster, author of “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam.” graduated from West Point in 1984, and, during the Gulf War, commanded Eagle Troop, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment’s successful ground campaign against Iraq’s Republican Guard in the Battle of 73 Easting. He has taught at West Point and received his Ph.D. in military history from the University of North Carolina in 1996. He recently was promoted to General.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 3:39 AM
There are four questions that should be asked.
1) Are we winning in Afghanistan?
2) Can we win in Afghanistan using the current approach?
3) Should we win in Afghanistan?
4) What constitutes winning in Afghanistan?
a) Neutralizing the Taliban and the Al Qaida members they are supporting and shielding.
b) Only neutralize the Taliban.
c) Only eliminate the Al Qaeda members the Taliban are supporting and shielding.
d) Installing a democracy in Afghanistan?
That would give some serious grist for the mill.
{^_^}
herself on September 2, 2009 at 4:32 AM
My ignoring you in no way implies that I think you are right. I just don’t think you are worth an argument. I am the mother of a son. Do you think that I don’t care, that somehow your experience about Vietnam makes you better able to comment? When you are talking to a man who is over there protecting you, you do not say the things you said. I was not the only one who found your statement offensive. Now, go ahead and blather and foam at them mouth, your opinion of me matters not. Your anti-war stance meant more to you than thinking about the morale of the man you were speaking to. You are a putz.
TXMomof3 on September 2, 2009 at 6:02 AM
at ‘the’ mouth oops.
TXMomof3 on September 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM
GEN Stan McChrystal is an extraordinary commander and bears all of the battle scars of Afghanistan since 2001. He is a helluva guy and he has absolutely my fullest support for his command in OEF. I pray his mission is clarified, resourced, and accomplished. The President did a great job in selecting GEN McChrystal for this position–he got the right man for the job.
ted c on September 2, 2009 at 10:19 AM
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 3:39 AM
excellent insight, thank you
ted c on September 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
great questions. Any of these could constitute a thesis either at the War College or CGSC.
ted c on September 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Denial of a safe haven for terrorists to recruit, train, plan and deploy from is a core tenet of the mission in OEF.
ted c on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
America has nothing to win in Afghanistan. It’s a mess and an irrelevant backwater. That’s why GWB wisely put his priorities elsewhere.
Obama wants Afghanistan to turn into a quagmire. A “second Vietnam” would reenergize the left. Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates are put in position to take the blame.
Obama will use Afghanistan to purge the moderates from his administration when the time is right and to gut the military, the hated Pentagon and CIA, for his domestic programs.
modifiedcontent on September 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
And how, exactly, could anybody prove the United States would not have accepted Operation Linebacker and the mining of Haiphong harbor in 1966? By adding the cute phrase “acceptable to the American public” you make a political argument not a historical exploration.
Chris_Balsz on September 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM
My guess the public has assumed the War is not worth fighting if Obama is in charge
While Bush was President, we knew
1. the soldier was respected and supported
2. Bush had an original purpose: the Taliban and the 911 conduit. Bush said it like he meant it and never wavered
Now Obama is President and he has a distaste fot uniform, flag and patria. It was obvious during the election he had hyped Afghanistan merely to prove Iraq was a mistake
Obama has never given a policy speech to explain why Afghanistan is so important, and he has never shown he had a heartfelt reason to risk American lives there.
Obama has time to interrupt Prime Time for a Healthcare address to the nation, while boys are being blown up for what again?
It is too late for Obama to suddenly reveal his distress over the suffering and sacrifice of our men. It is too late to show up and roll bandages at the Red Cross and hold a tea dance to raise money for the widows.
Obama does not even acknowlege terrorism is our enemy and has banished the word from the White House, erasing all credibility for the mission
This the public can smell from a hundred yards away
Sending men to die is not the same as sending a busload of SEIU to a Townhall. This was Obama’s mistake
Meanwhile, the only facts coming out are generals saying they do not have enough troops to do the job and we are taking high casualties. The public has to assume the push comes from politicians
Obama cannot gain credibility on this because he put Townhall spit fights ahead of a war. Vietnam redux
entagor on September 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM
“Acceptable to the American public” is not a “cute phrase” as the United States is a representative democracy not North Korea nor Iran nor a banana republic and it is H.R. McMaster’s phrase, not mine, although obviously I agree with it.
“An hour after General Cody’s talk at Fort Knox, several captains met to discuss the issue over beers. Capt. Garrett Cathcart, who has served in Iraq as a platoon leader, said: “The culture of the Army is to accomplish the mission, no matter what. That’s a good thing.” Matt Wignall, who was the first captain to ask General Cody about the Yingling article, agreed that a mission-oriented culture was “a good thing, but it can be dangerous.” He added: “It is so rare to hear someone in the Army say, ‘No, I can’t do that.’ But sometimes it takes courage to say, ‘I don’t have the capability.’ ” Before the Iraq war, when Rumsfeld overrode the initial plans of the senior officers, “somebody should have put his foot down,” Wignall said.”
“When McMaster’s book was published in 1997, Gen. Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ordered all commanders to read it — and to express disagreements to their superiors, even at personal risk. Since then, “Dereliction of Duty” has been recommended reading for Army officers.”
- Fred Kaplan
It’s stunning. Go get Dereliction of Duty, a blistering and scholarly expose.
- Rush Limbaugh
Red hot. Brilliantly shows how the American people were conned.
- Col Davis Hackworth U.S. Army (retired)
If those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, then H.R. McMaster has done the Pentagon and the nation a favor. He has good advise for readers, especially high ranking military ones. Like all good history books, it unlocks the past and guides an understanding of the present.
- Ernest Blazar
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Road apples. There is no such thing as an inevitable political development. There is no way to measure the hypothetical American reaction to a Nixonian strategy of mass bombing in the mid-60′s if LBJ had been so minded. The fact Nixon was re-elected 4 years after LBJ had to roll over and quit, is one indicator that the American people might have found an all-out strikes acceptable.
You ignore the real dependence of the NVA in the LBJ years on conventional routes of supply and the Communist destruction of their fifth column in Tet, and offer ‘authority’ that military outcomes must be subverted to “inevitable” political conclusions. And your ‘authority’ is mistaken and should be called on it. Writing a history is the beginning of an argument, not the resolution of one.
Besides, touting “inevitable” political developments is unAmerican. We’re a representative democracy, not an ideological state like North Korea fulfilling a fifty-year plan.
Chris_Balsz on September 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM
We certainly have some serious problems to deal with in putting together a winning strategy in Afghanistan.
Dealing with the tribes,corruption,Pakistan,terrain, and handcuffing Roe’s are just some of the hurtles.
There are many problems as MB4 and many others have pointed out. I am making sure that I keep an open mind to the opinions of our Vietnam veterans because their insight into this is of high importance.
These are some of the problems that parallel the Vietnam experience:
Marines Fight Taliban With Little Aid From Afghans
BY Herschel Smith
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/08/24/marines-fight-taliban-with-little-aid-from-afghans/
This,politicizing war policy,making decisions based on ideology and polls,no commitment to win,not providing the resources demanded by our military to be successful are problems I see in the Obama administration concerning Afghanistan.
I support our war effort 100%.
I will not support sacrificing our Soldiers to ease political fallout for the democrats.
We don’t need Afghanistan to turn into “Hamburger Hill” on steroids with politicians trying to dance around “surrendering with style”.
A commitment to win would require major resources, manpower,and leadership from the White House.
We will see what happens.
I think it is extremely important that we achieve success in Afghanistan because failure would be catastrophic to gaining support in future conflicts and the jihadist claims of victory will kick off a major run of terrorist attacks and advancement of shira law.
The new Caliphate would receive a huge surge in support with America’s capitulation in this theater.
The discussion of surrender in Afghanistan is a 180′ turn from what Obama promised though:
Karzai: Obama Promises To Fight Terror
Says President-Elect Pledged To Make Counterinsurgency A Top Priority, Would Increase Assistance To Afghanistan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/23/terror/main4628082.shtml
Obama called Afghanistan and fighting terror a top priority.
Anyone with a double digit IQ can deduce that it has been anything but that.
Bogus stimulus (800 billion pay for play),huge wasteful budgets,Cap and Trade,government run health care,government taking over banks and businesses is what has been on Obama’s agenda.
Obama never ever speaks of “victory” concerning the War on Terror.
We have been operating on Obama’s plans since January:
Military Ready To Implement Obama’s Plans
Joint Chiefs Chairman Says Forces Are Ready To Shift From Iraq To Afghanistan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/18/iraq/main4615328.shtml?source=related_story
Yet this administration continues to blame everything on Bush.
This talk of cutting and running is a far cry from “we have a better plan”,”we won’t to fight the Good War”,and “smart power” that Obama and the democrats bragged about so much.
I have been saying it for a while and still believe it.
Obama’s capitulation in Afghanistan will be the death knell of any FDR/JFK Presidential fantasies that have been put forth by the press.
Obama will be viewed as a weak,narcissistic failure internationally and domestically.
Say what you want about Bush but he did not surrender, and understood the consequences of cutting and running despite what it did to his poll numbers.
Baxter Greene on September 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM
My authority, H.R. McMaster, recently promoted to General at General Petraeus’ urging, is not mistaken. Chis Balsz is mistaken.
Also, see Notwithstanding the departure of the last US combat troops from Vietnam in 1973, the Vietnam War continues to be fought and refought here in the United States. Wars are unpleasant to wage, and even more unpleasant to lose. The Vietnam War has divided Americans as has no other foreign conflict since the War of 1812. George McGovern, politically both product and victim of the war, has declared it “our second civil war. We are going to be fighting it for the rest of our lives from the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97.
BTW, were you there? If so, in what branch of the service and when?
Whole lot of Dolchstoßlegende on the part of those who think the war was so winnable.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 4:14 PM
The scapegoat was again SnowBush. Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to SnowBush. In fact many of the claims begin to sound ridiculous to the objective mind. Of course, Squealer Obama’s mission is to keep everything subjective in the minds of the sheeple.
Cheshire Cat on September 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I know a lot of Apache guys. Whats his unit? We have 1-82nd Wolfpack here.
hawkdriver on September 2, 2009 at 11:25 PM
You haven’t answered the question: how does McMaster measure the hypothetical American reaction to a Nixonian attack on North Vietnam in 1966, instead of the open fist of escalation? They’re arguing America would not have accepted “potentially decisive” manuevers- based on what? What empirical data supports the conclusion that the political exhaustion was “inevitable”? Methinks the War College has a vested interest in producing flag officers who don’t buck Congress. Don’t wave book reviews at me, cite some data.
Nope, was born in 1974. What I have read is plenty of “history” on the war, which has now shifted to the “official” pov : The outcome was destined, it was the best possible outcome, and it was delayed by nasty Americans who couldn’t find the character to lose one to the Commies.
BTW according to McMasters:
is a repudiation of the necessity of direct experience of Nam for understanding the war effort– you were lied to by the Inner Sanctum– and a bit of Dolchstosselegend itself.
Chris_Balsz on September 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM
If you had been in America at the time, and even more so if you had been in the U.S. Army in RVN at the time, you would not ask such a foolish question. To you the Vietnam war is just a fantasy, rather like the Civil War is to some southerners who were not even born then yet are still fighting it. I’ll bet some of them think the South would have won too, if it had just persevered and/or not been “Stabbed in the Back”. Are you one of those too?
I read his book, as well as the U.S. Army War College report, and have direct experience with hundreds of people who were there, and when they were actually there, having been there myself. If I ever invent a time machine I will take you back there and you can see for yourself.
MB4 on September 3, 2009 at 3:22 AM
BTW Chris, if you were born in 1974, you would be 34 or 35 now, so you can very much still join the U.S. Army and go to Afghanistan, maybe even a few times, and then in a few decades decide whether or not you want to tell all about how we didn’t really need to end up withdrawing from Afghanistan, and could still be there, I suppose.
MB4 on September 3, 2009 at 3:30 AM
THAT’S the empirical data that supports the declaration that political exhaustion was inevitable and that LBJ could not have brought the war to the North: “You had to be there”?
But you were duped, according to McMasters.
I did ask, but one of the problems we’re having as our military is “exhausted” is they don’t take everybody who offers to go. I’ve known two guys who were downchecked for the Army who joined a police force as patrol officers. Also, since I went and became a paralegal, if I got in I’d be an E4 Legal Specialist. Besides I have plenty to do on the Home Front raising the blood pressure of peaceniks.
Chris_Balsz on September 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3