The big New York Times story on the Afghan War today (3/27/12) focuses on public opinion in the United States, which is now dramatically anti-war: 69 percent think we shouldn’t be there.
An interesting point argument is raised later in the piece, when two sources make the argument that the war wouldn’t be so unpopular if Barack Obama would just do a better job of selling it:
Peter Feaver of Duke University, who has long studied public opinion about war and worked in the administration of President George W. Bush, said that in his view there would be more support for the war if President Obama talked more about it. “He has not expended much political capital in defense of his policy,” Mr. Feaver said. “He doesn’t talk about winning in 2014; he talks about leaving in 2014. In a sense that protects him from an attack from the left, but I would think it has the pernicious effect of softening political support for the existing policy.”
And later we get this from Brookings Institution hawk Michael O’Hanlon:
“I honestly believe if more people understood that there is a strategy and intended sequence of events with an end in sight, they would be tolerant,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “The overall image of this war is of U.S. troops mired in quicksand and getting blown up and arbitrarily waiting until 2014 to come home. Of course you’d be against it.”
This is a pretty widespread belief in recent press coverage of Afghanistan– that somehow Obama could better explain the Afghan War if he’d just decide to do so. Here’s Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor (Chris Matthews Show, 3/18/12):
The criticism that you keep hearing from Republicans, and I think there’s some validity to this, is that the president also didn’t really spend any political capital selling this mission to the public. I’m not sure the public really understands what the mission is there anymore. Once bin Laden was dead, I think a lot of Americans feel like, “OK, we’ve solved our main problem over there.” In terms of our goals there, it keeps getting defined down. We’re not going to, you know, build a perfect democracy there anymore. And so I think people are thinking, “Well, why are we even there anymore?”
The Washington Post editorial page (3/20/12):
Mr. Obama must do more to build support in the United States for his policy. The president has given just a handful of speeches on Afghanistan during his first term, and his recent public comments have focused on bringing troops home, rather than completing their mission.
And Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (3/22/12):
Obama has made broadly responsible decisions on Afghanistan. He bears the private burdens of wartime leadership with dignity as he comforts the families of the fallen. He has a strong national security team, a serious military strategy and measurable successes to highlight. But with a nation in need of rallying, his public voice is weak.
The assumption, of course, is that there is, in fact, an Afghan War “strategy” to defend. And that if Americans really understood what their country was doing there, they would support it.
Certainly there is a strategy to defend, and I’d hope to hell that if
Americans really understood what their country was doing there, they’d
condemn it.
I can dream.
What’s being called for here is known more familiarly as “propaganda”,
and the administration has engaged in it on a daily basis. At this
point, however, support for its claimed aims in Afghanistan isn’t its
focus. The massive intervention tack has been tried, and found
wanting, and now the goal is to create the conditions for a permanent
presence under the auspices of a compliant “independent” government.
Its true goals of the realization of the TAPI pipeline, and
geostrategic dominance of the region, remain unchanged.
“Terrorism” is the boogeyman.
And in the empire game, you can’t boogie without a boogeyman.
pretty sure no matter have they repackage the product and tweak the marketing, the dog still won’t eat the food.
Not sure why it’s incumbent (pun not intended) on the current President to up-sell a war that was started by his predecessor.
Basically this is political, and the right wants to take any chance to make Obama look bad. I recall when this war started, if you were critical of Bush, those same think tankers and journalists would condemn you as hating America.
I’m a bit confused with all of this war, war crimes, warmongering, crimes against humanity being a PR matter and such. Allow me to explain that, please.
Hitler was the one who, watching the product of Madison Avenue, marbeled at the ability of Amerikans to sell anything, no matter how unsavory or bad. He figured that if he could copy those techniques, he could sell the German people on Fascism. And alas! he figured out a way and he did it…to perfection! Fast forward to 2012 and the Chosen People(tm) are now the specialists on such techniques only in Kosher, it’s not propanda but Hasbara. And we know all just how well all that is working out for them. Now, throw the Amerikans in the mix. And imperialiam, terrorism (theirs), invasion, occupation, genocide on a global scale & madness also become a PR issue, the Amerikan word for propaganda/Hasbara. So, to cut thru the chase what I see here is a repetition of Hitler’s tools of mass madness & Fascism with a different name (adapted to fit the particular geographic scenario/ethnic group/nationality). Ergo, what we are experiencing here is Fascism via – or with a stop in – Israel. So, in the end, the Nazis still win. Am I right on this analysis or am I reading too much into this?
Enoch – your terminology “a war that was started by his predecessor”has me confused.The war in Afghanistan was started by highjacked planes smashing into our country.It was started when the camps they had come from, and the country that had shielded them,and the terrorists that had trained them, turned a blind eye to turning over these murderers .Murderers that were in fact in charge of that country at that time.Our attack needed no justification.The only question now is how to best leave without having that murderous faction return.We like the Russians before us ,have found a country as different from us as the moon.Obama has a tough nut here.But the article is right in saying that he has not spoken about it to the American public.A lot of his game is political positioning.Maybe he will speak after the next election(if he wins).He recently said something like that to the Russian Secretary of state.
NO good, Bad and UGLY: Redcoats (US!).
My only interest in the war in Afghanistan and message to President Obama is, GET
OUT NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear michael e. :
If Afghanistan bombed the World Trade Center, then why did Mr. Bush attack Iraq?
The pilots were from Saudi Arabia, but we didn’t attack that country either.
Apparently the U.S. gave tons and tons of money to Mr. Suddam, but that didn’t do much good for the people of Iraq.
I have no idea who in the military knows anything. The journalists don’t seem to remember much. We should probably have historians in the State Dept and the military because they remember what has happened previously. Hopefully they won’t forget the past and repeat it. We do seem to be doing that forgetting a lot.
Regarding what Americans think…I think they are looking at Greece and saying OMG! We’re next!” When the military eats up so much of the budget and doesn’t have to keep track of what they spend, then that is really criminal.
What possible PR could convince any people in any country, that cutting wages, pensions, jobs, and making public ownership into private property, to pay for a war would be a good move? It is truly criminal to war upon your own citizens.
I think all of those journalists should be parachuted into Greece, and have to forgae for sustance for a month or so. Would they be able to report that having any kind war is good for any people of any country. ( Financial wars are just as creepy as bomb dropping wars, because a lot of people will die in both wars)
If there is some purpose that is even defensible on imperialist terms, perhaps they should make it instead of asking politicians to do so! Oh, forgot, cannot sell that many newspapers if you are too much more nakedly imperialistic than your readership.
Well Gloriana The article above is on Afghanistan.My comments were on that.Greece is a warning.An entitlement society with holes eaten into it like swiss cheese.We need never go there.Hopefully we have learned enough to move away from that cliff,as much of Europe is beginning to do.We can not borrow and spend ,and tax our way out of our problems.We CAN recreate wealth and do what we do best.Lead the world forward, by using rugged American individualism, built upon the rock of American freedoms, and inventive entrepreneurial capitalist spirit.Free of over zealous government interference.This is something the left does not understand, and in fact actively endeavors to inhibit and block.
As far as the military,Im starting to wonder if the left wants us to have one…and at what cost if any.I know you think we can get by on our good looks and maybe begging at the feet of our enemies.Since its our fault anyway right?Just throw ourselves upon their mercy.Look under our constitution one of the few things this government is charged with doing is creating a military for the protection of the people(article 2 section 8).Entitlement programs and there funding to replace these articles I have as yet not found.Because they don’t exist!
Perhaps the only way to sell this war, is to talk about it as little as possible. What does that tell you?
Yup Pace that is a pretty good assessment.Kinda like marriage…………….
It is getting very hard to believe anyone anymore. PR without content is very dismal.
I think we need more military accountability instead of PR.The military does seem to waste and lose a lot of money and we need more stories on that, instead of talking about the “insurgents” that strangely seem to spend so much time getting themselves killed at weddings and funerals.
There is no need for better PR, but there is a need for a REASON for going to war in the first place. I don’t think we , as a nation, ever really had that reason.
Gloriana no need for going to war?Wish you could of been with me near the rubble sight a bit after 911.
the country most complicit in the 9/11 attacks was saudi arabia….oddly we didn’t go to war with them..
after 9/11, during the period when all commercial flights were grounded, the bush administration ok’d flights to get dozens of saudis including memebers of the bin laden family out of the country. richard clark gave the go-ahead on this.
saudi prince bandar was at the white house visiting his friend george w. bush two nights after the attack..they smoked cigars and visted with chaney and rice.
also of intereest, at least three of the highjackers visited a saudi living in a gated florida community in the months leading up to 9/11….he and his wife disappeared a few weeks before the attack…leaving almost all their possessions behind including food in the kitchen and three cars
members of the 9/11 commission said they were never informed of the fbi’s investigation of the incident
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/10/2496033/graham-still-no-fbi-records-on.html
America is also an entitlement society. It always has been, for the 1%. Some day, if they are honest, michael e and those who think like him will realize that one cannot call a society such as this one, which has a such a long history of slavery and race-based injustice and oppression as a meritocracy.
Woodward….Saudi Arabia may have birthed many of these Devils but they were trained and set loose from Afghanistan terrorist bases controlled by Osama. If they were Americans trained there,dying for that belief,With the next round coming from there …..then our missile should still of been aimed there.Not to Florida where one was born.
That simple reality aside,Saudi arabia is no dear friend of ours- obviously.The quicker we tap our own resources and tell those Arab factions to go pound sand the better.
Pleasehead
This amazing land HAS had a history of slavery…that we fought a civil war to end!Race based injustice that was thrown down not by blacks(who were a very small minority at the time)but by whites who solely at that time sat in the seats of power. What an amazing People we are.Giving all races the ability to rise to their own capabilities.Remember meritocracy is an ideal…. not an actual form of government.
How about we leave?
Monkey getting in- is sometimes easier than getting out.A lot of brave men gave their lives to come this far.We need to do the best we can to leave this country with a chance for freedom.That is our best chance at security as well.No guarantees.This country really is like the other side of the moon.I do wish we could get an honest appraisal of the situation and progress(or lack of it)without political posturing.
Several observations. 1) Afghanistan did not attack us. A small band of thugs did. So why did we let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in 2002? Why didn’t we treat this as a limited policing action, in which we specifically went after the responsible non-state actors (OBL’s gang) and try them in a world court, and not bomb a country into ruins, ESPECIALLY when OBL was no longer there. He was killed in Pakistan, remember? 2) If Afghanistan is “like the other side of the Moon”, why would anyone believe that it can be magically turned into a vibrant democracy if we just bomb it a little bit longer? Stable democracies need functional infrastructure, functioning economies, gainful employment, etc. You can’t help a populace when the only job opportunities are growing opium. Unemployment runs over 40%, the roads are non-existent, and mines and unexploded ordinances are everywhere. 3) I’m old enough to remember the old “too many people lost their lives for this-we can’t get out of Vietnam” stuff. That thinking cost us over 50,000 young men dead, over 2 million Vietnamese causalities, untold billions of dollars, for a war based on deception, unwinnable by design, in support of gravely misguided foreign policies. This is just the “Sunk-Cost” fallacy all over again. 4) The real reason we can’t get an honest appraisal of the situation is the Pentagon doesn’t want one. Too many lucrative contracts would be lost, and the shortcomings would make too many public officials look bad. Why do you suppose all the reporter in these wars are “embedded” with the Military? It’s great for “Perception Management”.