Obama Fights The GOP’s War In Afghanistan
Jazz linked earlier to the new ABC-WaPo poll results on Afghanistan. I’d like to take a closer look at the data.
The Post’s headline reports, Public Opinion in US Turns Against Afghan War.
Among all adults, 51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting, up six percentage points since last month and 10 since March. Less than half, 47 percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those strongly opposed (41 percent) outweigh strong proponents (31 percent).
Yet strangely, 60 percent approve of Obama’s handling of the war and
Broad majorities across party lines say they are confident that the United States will defeat the Taliban and succeed in spurring economic development.
I think public opinion is far more nuanced than the WaPo headline suggests. The situation is very complicated because we have a Democratic president, deeply admired by his own party, now sending additional troops to fight a war that his fans oppose and his critics support. The Post observes,
Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels.Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war’s strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama’s policies.
Unfortunately, the WaPo data sheet doesn’t provide a breakdown by part of who approves of the President’s handling of the war. The WaPo article mentions that 43% of Republicans approve, which implies that Democrats and independents approve to a much greater extent, if Obama’s overall ratings is 60.
In other words, Democrats (and possibly independents) approve of Obama’s performance, are confident that he can bring the war to a successful conclusion, but don’t think the war is worth fighting. That’s not a contradiction. I am sure we could win a war against Canada, but it still wouldn’t be worth it (although possibly enjoyable).
The harder thing to know about Democrats (and liberals, whose opposition is even greater) is whether they oppose the war in such great numbers because it has been especially bloody the past few months, or whether they really don’t believe that this is a war of necessity, no matter how often Obama says so.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Obama Fights The GOP’s War In Afghanistan”
–[I am sure we could win a war against Canada, but it still wouldn’t be worth it (although possibly enjoyable).]–
Don't you mean Mexico?
“the GOPs War”
I'm sorry but Afganistan is not “the GOPs” war, our involvement in Iraq might have been resisted by some democrats, but Afganistan was about as bipartisan an issue as we've seen in a long time.
You're absolutely right that there was overwhelming bipartisan support at the outset But if 7 out of 10 Democrats now think war isn't worth fighting, then perhaps it has become the GOP's war.
Last I checked there was a Democrat as Commander-In-Chief and Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress. So, No, it still isn't “the GOP's War”
David's point was that non-Democrats seem to be more enthusiastic about this war than Democrats.
I've been a gung ho supporter of the war in Afghanistan from Day One. I thought Iraq was a foolish diversion from the more important war in Afghanistan. I supported Bush on Afghanistan and I support Obama on Afghanistan. And I'm about as partisan a Democrat as there is.
“David's point was that non-Democrats seem to be more enthusiastic about this war than Democrats.”
Got no problem with that, but it still does not make it “the GOP's War” with democrats in charge of government. Its an inappropriate label.
You obviously haven't had the pleasure of traveling through the Canadian country side in the winter. It's large and it's COLD… Really COLD…
Or it could be that they don't believe it can be won.
If the Soviets who were far more ruthless than we are and much closer geographically couldn't win, what leads anyone to believe we can?
When's the last time you saw the Republicans disapprove of a war as long as they think we are winning?
I am starting to think that they can't get their jollies unless some country full of brown people is being bombed back into the dark ages by the US military…
” I am starting to think that they can't get their jollies unless some country full of brown people is being bombed back into the dark ages by the US military…”
Well it gives us an outlet so we don't go to NAACP rallies in white Hoods and start lynching folks or suicide bombing mosques, or going down to the Texas border and laying landmines betting on who can score more hits on illegals crossing…..
Those are what we'd do if we didn't have a war your know….
*Rolls Eyes*
Leonidas,
Except for the suicide bombing (that actually requires sacrifice), I would not put any of the above past a good chunk of the republican party with or without war…
Got no problem with that, but it still does not make it “the GOP's War” with democrats in charge of government. Its an inappropriate label.
Not to mention Obama escalated it.
Bush may have started the Afghan and Iraq wars, but there is no doubt that Democrats have embraced both despite their campaign rhetoric.
This has been an interesting discussion. I'm perfectly glad to say that the war in Afghanistan has many “owners”. The point of my comments was to emphasize how, in the realm of public opinion, it is increasingly a GOP war. Yet given that the President is the commander-in-chief, the dominant perspective will remain that this is “Obama's war”, especially because he chose to escalate it. Yet we should keep an eye on how the unusual partisan dynamics affect the situation. Will Democratic legislators loyally vote to fund all of Obama's proposed spending? Or will Obama wind up relying on GOP votes as more and more Democrats register their opposition?
Don Q
” Except for the suicide bombing (that actually requires sacrifice), I would not put any of the above past a good chunk of the republican party with or without war…”
You sound like a leftie version of Rush Limbaugh.