A record 60 percent of Americans say the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting, a grim assessment -- and a politically hazardous one -- in advance of the Obama administration's one-year review of its revised strategy.
Public dissatisfaction with the war, now the nation's longest, has spiked by 7 points just since July. Given its costs vs. its benefits, only 34 percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the war's been worth fighting, down by 9 points to a new low, by a sizable margin.
Gosh, I wonder why.
The public's increasingly negative assessment comes after a new strategy, including a surge of U.S. and allied forces, led to the Afghanistan war's bloodiest year. According to icasualties.org, nearly 500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 4,481 wounded in 2010, compared with 317 killed and 2,114 wounded in 2009, and 155 killed, 793 wounded in 2008.
While opposition to the war has grown, Obama himself gets more mixed reviews for handling it. This survey, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 45 percent approve of Obama's work on Afghanistan, matching his low, while 46 percent disapprove, a scant 2 points from the high. Still, that's considerably better than Bush's ratings for handling Iraq in his second term -- on average, 63 percent disapproved of how he did.
One apparent reason is Obama's pledge to start withdrawing U.S. forces next summer. Fifty-four percent of Americans support that time frame -- up by 15 points since it was announced a year ago. An additional 27 percent say the withdrawal should begin sooner; just 12 percent say it should start later, down 7 points from a year ago.
Increasingly it's looking like whether or not Obama keeps his promise to get us out of Aghanistan that will determine his re-election chances in 2012. Sure, I'm expecting the economy to also play a huge part in that, but if he postpones the withdrawal next year, he's in real, real trouble.
Also, there's the matter of us leaving Afghanistan being the right thing to do. In nine years we've managed to make a slightly less bombed place in Kabul. Yay us. Obama's mini-surge? Accomplished squat.
Declare victory, go home.
Posts
4 comments:
Increasingly it's looking like whether or not Obama keeps his promise to get us out of Aghanistan that will determine his re-election chances in 2012.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama derided McCain, Bush, and Republicans for not getting bin Laden after 7 years (at the time). As noted by the UK Sunday Times:
As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
The piece in the Times was from just before Obama was sworn in as President when he said getting bin Laden was no longer a priority.
All of Obama's "promises" come with an expiration date.
It also proves that he never had any intention of getting bin Laden. He just said he would to get elected. He'll say anything to get elected.
By the way, did you see this? "America's New Mercenaries". The lede:
As American commanders meet this week for the Afghanistan review, Obama is hiring military contractors at a rate that would make Bush blush.
Hmmm....
Don't tell me; this is just another example of Obama's "smart power", right?
So 7 years of a Republican = 2 of a Democrat.
Right.
Bush gets a pass on getting us into both wars because Obama hasn't found bin Laden.
Awesome.
I think it has been established that SteveAR is a fucking moron who is more interested in scoring points than actual policy.
Your average wingnut, really.
Post a Comment