by Mark Silva
"This is not Vietnam in many respects," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said in a reported interview during his latest trip to Afghanistan.
"We are here in Afghanistan because people attacked us here in the most significant attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor,'' said Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. "We are here because there are still people at large who are plotting against the United States of America. And we are here because the stability of this region is of critical strategic interest to the United States."
Roughly half of the Americans surveyed disagree with Kerry's characterization of Afghanistan as not another Vietnam. But, in the midst of deliberations at the White House about the best way forward for U.S. troops in Afghanistan after eight years of war there, ttalk about conflicting public opinion at home:
Most people surveyed - 59 percent in a new CNN/Opinion Research poll released today- say they oppose deploying additional troops to Afghanistan. Just 39 percent support sending more troops.
Nearly half favor the idea of either withdrawing from Afghanistan - 28 percent - or reducing the number of troops there - 21 percent.
Yet most - 61 percent - say they consider the war in Afghanistan to be "part of the war on terrorism which began on September 11, 2001.
And most - 60 percent - say it is necessary for the U.S. to keep troops in Afghanistan.
Few, however, think it is likely over the next five years that Afghanistan will have a democratic government that won't be overthrown by terrorists or the Taliban - just 31 percent. Few think it is likely that the Afghan military and police will be able to maintain safety and security without the assistance of the U.S. - 31 percent.
And few think it unlikely that Afghanistan will be able to prevent terrorists from using the nation as a base of operations for planning attacks against the U.S. - 33 percent.
And, asked if "the war in Afghanistan has turned into a situation like the United States faced in the Vietnam War,'' 52 percent say they believe it has. And 46 percent say it hasn't.
58,000 American soldiers -- and John Kerry -- are hoping the 46 percent are right.
The survey of 1,038 adults was conducted by Opinion Research Corp. between Oct. 16 and 18, with a possible margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.
Comments
We'd probably already be finished with Afghanistan by now if Bush and Cheney hadn't decided that it would be a great idea to blow it off and invade Iraq for no reason.
Afghanistan is a lost cause, the people who attacked us on 9/11 have already left (thanks again Bu$hco). By staying there we are doing nothing but wasting more blood and treasure.
Posted by: Bert Huber | October 19, 2009 2:29 PM
"Afghanistan another Vietnam?"
If Obama keeps allowing his military judgment to be dictated by domestic political considerations, it will be. Obama either needs to be willing to fight to win or get our boys the hell out of there. The kind of indecision he has been demonstrating recently is only going to get more of our people killed unnecessarily, and has decimated the morale of our troops. He kept saying during the election campaign that Afghanistan is a war of necessity, and is the proper front (i.e. not Iraq) to be waging our war against the terrorists. Okay, then start acting like it, Mr. Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Fight to Win or Bring 'Em Home | October 19, 2009 2:33 PM
Finally, the GOP is starting to hit back at Democrats on Afghanistan and other things, it's about time. This is the most powerful anti Democrats video I have seen from the RNC yet.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IAN081P8I
Posted by: Erick E | October 19, 2009 2:50 PM
Definitely another Vietnam.
Pull out and let them fight among them selves, no more American lives .
Lets worry about Iran..
Posted by: inky | October 19, 2009 3:15 PM
I thought Bush and The Dick Cheney already defeated Al-Qaeda?
"If only the President of the United States (Bush) had gone into Afghanistan and concentrated on rebuilding the country properly, instead of seeking to impose his vision of a modern, democratic state which is so unrealistic, and continued to exercise non-military pressures on Iraq by international means, the prospects of a significant legacy of George W Bush might have been infinitely brighter."
.
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/65494
Posted by: over do it and have a fit | October 19, 2009 3:30 PM
he has been demonstrating recently is only going to get more of our people killed unnecessarily, and has decimated the morale of our troops. He kept saying during the election campaign that Afghanistan is a war of necessity, and is the proper front (i.e. not Iraq) to be waging our war against the terrorists. Okay, then start acting like it, Mr. Commander
Posted by: Fight to Win or Bring 'Em Home | October 19, 2009 2:33 PM
*******************************
.
I'd rather have a President who looks at all of his options (Obama), than one who just keeps throwing more troops and money at every problem he has (Bush) - because he want's to be a "war President" and he want's to make his cronies in the Military Industrial Complex (Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc) stinking rich off the backs of hard working American tax payers.
Posted by: Thanks but No Thanks | October 19, 2009 4:11 PM
"I'd rather have a President who looks at all of his options (Obama)"
That sounds nice in theory until you realize that the "options" Obama is pondering involve how to avoid alienating his already fractured domestic supporters on the health care reform effort. In other words, the "options" that are occupying Obama's thoughts have nothing to do with the war itself. He knows that if he does what is necessary to fight the war as he said it needs to be fought, his domestic agenda will suffer. That's Vietnam-era thinking. Bush may have had some major problems as a president, but indecision as a wartime commander was not one of them.
Posted by: Fight to Win or Bring 'Em Home | October 19, 2009 4:45 PM
Excuse me, but I thought it was the "good war", that's what he said.
Posted by: vla | October 19, 2009 6:39 PM
Bush blew the capture of bin Laden at Tora Bora, but that occurred in Dec, 2001 - over a year before the invasion Iraq.
It's sad that Bush even needed to blow bin Laden's capture at Tora Bora. That was necessary since Clinton blew EIGHT, YES EIGHT, opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. Fact is, CLinton just punted on terrorism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1707982/posts
As for Iraq, what about these prominent democrats that believed Saddam had WMDs?
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
Posted by: Terry | October 19, 2009 7:29 PM
The way Obama and gang are going it soon will be.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 19, 2009 8:05 PM
***************************
Bush blew the capture of bin Laden at Tora Bora, but that occurred in Dec, 2001 - over a year before the invasion Iraq.It's sad that Bush even needed to blow bin Laden's capture at Tora Bora. That was necessary since Clinton blew EIGHT, YES EIGHT, opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. Fact is, CLinton just punted on terrorism.
Posted by: Terry | October 19, 2009 7:29 PM
********************************
.
Poor wittle Terri,
She's so wrong that she's been reduced to using postings from the whackadoodle Freeper Republic site to support her Bu$hco hero worshipping.
Bush Ignored 9/11 Warnings
A former member of the 9/11 Commission criticizes former President George W. Bush in a new book for not responding to pre-attack intelligence on Osama bin Laden's intentions.
In "The Emperor's New Clothes: Exposing the Truth from Watergate to 9/11," Richard Ben-Veniste writes that CIA analysts told Bush that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the United States, "yet the president had done absolutely nothing to follow up."
.
http://theworstpresidentever.blogspot.com/2009/05/bush-ignored-911-warnings.html
.
Posted by: Terry is a girls name | October 19, 2009 11:29 PM
Bush may have had some major problems as a president, but indecision as a wartime commander was not one of them.
Posted by: Fight to Win or Bring 'Em Home | October 19, 2009 4:45 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
Bush's problem was his being consistently WRONG and then not changing course when the situation called for it because he thought his "resolve" made him look like a tough guy war President. Instead it made him look like a moron who thought with his gut instead of his head.
.
http://www.alternet.org/story/39530/
Like I said before, I'll take a smart guy as President (Obama), one who weighs all of his options, instead of some phony, fake cowboy, wannabe tough guy (Bush) who thinks with his "gut" any day of the week.
Posted by: Thanks but No Thanks | October 19, 2009 11:40 PM
We know Afg. is another 'Vietnam'.
That's what we said about Russia in the 80's: 'It's their Vietnam! Yay!!'
Remember?
America; To stupid to remember the 80's, has now fallen into the same old trap.
No historical analogy is ever perfect, but this is a pretty good one.
Karazi = Diem
Pak = secret war in Laos/Cam
porous borders
outside support
backstabbing allies (see Karazi)
Posted by: C.Morris | October 20, 2009 7:59 AM
"Like I said before, I'll take a smart guy as President (Obama)"
Okay, good luck with that. We'll see if you're singing the same tune in a couple years when we're still bogged down over there taking a steady stream of casualties in a very Vietnamesque fashion, while Obama impresses you with how deliberative and thoughtful he is. I just wish you could be the one to give the news personally to the families of the servicemembers that will die under Obama's command through his self-serving, politically-driven strategic waffling.
Posted by: Fight to Win or Bring 'Em Home | October 20, 2009 10:14 AM
For all those infantile commentor's with Bush in their shorts giving them that unrelenting rash, Obama is president.
It is now up to president Obama to follow through with his campaign promises regarding Afghanistan or break them as he see's them fall into the "unpopular" waste basket in his oval office.
Bush gone - Obama now in charge! no crying can change the reality of today and whose responsibilty it is to make decisions.
Posted by: springfield | October 20, 2009 10:20 AM
Boy it's amazing how the "Cut and Runners" have taken over the right, isn't it? It's amazing how suddenly they are demanding that the War in Agfhanistan get full attention after being neglected for 7 years. You know what's even more amazing? That they think that anyone believes that their sudden concern and care aboiut Afghanistan since Obama took office has anything to do with the troops or Afghanistan, rather than partisan politics.
Posted by: Suddenly you care? | October 20, 2009 12:03 PM
"Boy it's amazing how the "Cut and Runners" have taken over the right, isn't it?"
No such thing has happened. The right is telling Obama to stand behind his campaign rhetoric and fight to win in Afghanistan. The problem is that when Obama made those statements during the campaign, he didn't mean a word of it. It was pure partisan politics.
Obama knew he had been wrong about McCain's surge strategy and declaring the Iraq war lost, so needed to find some way to deflect criticism for that and appear hawkish -- and still be able to criticize the Bush administration at the same time for making Iraq its primary focus. So he made a bunch of noise about how Afghanistan rather than Iraq is the war we must win.
Well, Mr. Obama, now you're the C-in-C and Bush is out, so it's time to put up or shut up. Fight to win like you said, or, if you don't intend to do that, get our boys the hell out of harm's way. Either way, make a decision and quit your damned waffling.
Posted by: Fight to Win or Bring 'Em Home | October 20, 2009 1:01 PM
Girl,
That's It? You have a problem that the CBS story was referenced from the Free Republic? You are pathetic and desperate
Posted by: Terry | October 20, 2009 7:38 PM
Kerry: master of the distinction without a difference.
Afghanistan is not Viet Nam.
Right, John. One starts with A and is a mountainous wasteland; the other with V and has more vegitation.
Bert Huber is right.
Posted by: ornery | October 20, 2009 11:54 PM
For a guy who ignored Afghanistan for 7 years and allowed the Taliban to retake the country, Cheney is now talking like he has been concerned about Afghanistan all along.
How focused was the Bush administration on the war on the Taliban??? Read this article back in December of 2007
By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military’s top officer acknowledged on Tuesday that for all the importance of preventing Afghanistan from again harboring al-Qaida terrorists, Washington’s first priority is Iraq.
“In Afghanistan, we do what we can,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “In Iraq, we do what we must.”
His statement, delivered with emphasis in a prepared opening statement to the House Armed Services Committee, prompted some Democrats to say it showed what they have argued for years: that the Bush administration has become so bogged down in Iraq that it cannot make more effort in Afghanistan.
“I find it troubling that our ongoing commitment in Iraq prevents us from dedicating resources in Afghanistan beyond what is necessary to prevent setbacks, as opposed to what is required to realize success,” Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the committee, said after the hearing.
Mullen, testifying with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the effort to stabilize Afghanistan, said that war is “by design and necessity, an economy-of-force operation. There is no getting around that. Our main focus, militarily, in the region and in the world right now is rightly and firmly in Iraq.”
December 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-3963072919_x.htm
Posted by: Norris Hall | October 22, 2009 12:06 AM
i disagree obama is not making this another vietnam. What he does not have is the power to fight any harder. One thing that older presideents have had is the power to really fight. Obama seens he doesnt really want to put full effort. I say either send the troops in or take them out. Stop being so wishy washy.
Posted by: kate gopel | November 2, 2009 4:43 PM