By Matthew Bigg
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Many Americans say they support the deepening U.S. commitment to the war in Afghanistan, as long as the focus is fighting terrorism, but they are wary of getting bogged down as in Iraq.
Citizens, both Republicans and Democrats, voiced broad approval in interviews on Monday for increasing U.S. troop numbers to fight al Qaeda.
But they had serious doubts about any open-ended commitment to bring wholesale change to Afghanistan.
"I feel like we got to do what we got to do (to fight al Qaeda) but I don't think we need to go over there and stay," said Jimmy Robinson a business owner in Jackson, Mississippi.
"I don't think this needs to be one of those deals like Iraq. We have for too long tried to help everybody," said Robinson, 75, a veteran of the Korean War.
President Barack Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in February and while his strategy won NATO backing this weekend, European allies stopped short of matching the U.S. commitment with any long-term troop deployments of their own.
Fifty-three percent of respondents in the United States approved of Obama's February decision to commit more troops against 38 percent who disapproved, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
The campaign in Afghanistan started on a wave of popular approval because it was launched in response to the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
Within a year, debate over the invasion of Iraq displaced the Afghanistan conflict from public attention and it is only recently returning to prominence because of a deteriorating situation there.
Computer programer Susan French said the war in Iraq derailed the United States from its primary mission in Afghanistan and the reason why it faced a "quagmire" in both places was because Iraq had proved a distraction.
"Our attention was not in the right place and so we lost the prize," said French, who lives in Cincinnati, Ohio.
PARTISAN LINES BLURRED
Afghanistan has never excited the partisan divisions among Americans raised by the Iraq war, and Obama's troop increase there could further blur that divide. Some Republicans said they supported the troop increase and Obama's strategy.
"If the mission is to capture (Osama) bin Laden, I totally support it," said Norm Burns, of Rockwood, Tennessee, who described himself as a hawkish Republican.
But he sounded a note of caution. "As far as I can tell, all we are doing in Afghanistan is stumbling around and annoying the natives so it could become another Vietnam."
At the other end of the ideological spectrum, anti-war activist Gloria Tatum, who demonstrated against the Iraq conflict, said she had "mixed feelings" about Afghanistan.
"Something needs to be done but I'm not sure I have the answers," Tatum said.
Tim Franzen said he and other peace activists opposed the war in Afghanistan because it was an occupation like Iraq and unpopular with Afghans. But he acknowledged it was hard to drum up public support for his position.
"We know that Afghanistan was generally thought of as the 'good war' that we were supposed to be in, a more righteous war (than Iraq)," said Franzen, who works for the American Friends Service Committee, an anti-war group founded by Quakers to promote non-violence in 1917.
But even some Republicans said the cost of the war in Iraq in terms of U.S. lives and a spiraling federal budget deficit left them wary of greater involvement in Afghanistan.
Robert Jones of Kennesaw, Georgia, said he supported a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan because the tactic had worked in Iraq. But he added:
"People have concerns because we are scheduled to get out of Iraq but we are getting in deeper in Afghanistan. America is war weary and people would like to see a lot less money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan." (Additional reporting by Kathleen Baydala in Mississippi and Ed Stoddard in Texas; Editing Pascal Fletcher and Chris Wilson)
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Many Americans say they support the deepening U.S. commitment to the war in Afghanistan, as long as the focus is fighting terrorism, but they are wary of getting bogged down as in Iraq.
Citizens, both Republicans and Democrats, voiced broad approval in interviews on Monday for increasing U.S. troop numbers to fight al Qaeda.
But they had serious doubts about any open-ended commitment to bring wholesale change to Afghanistan.
"I feel like we got to do what we got to do (to fight al Qaeda) but I don't think we need to go over there and stay," said Jimmy Robinson a business owner in Jackson, Mississippi.
"I don't think this needs to be one of those deals like Iraq. We have for too long tried to help everybody," said Robinson, 75, a veteran of the Korean War.
President Barack Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in February and while his strategy won NATO backing this weekend, European allies stopped short of matching the U.S. commitment with any long-term troop deployments of their own.
Fifty-three percent of respondents in the United States approved of Obama's February decision to commit more troops against 38 percent who disapproved, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
The campaign in Afghanistan started on a wave of popular approval because it was launched in response to the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
Within a year, debate over the invasion of Iraq displaced the Afghanistan conflict from public attention and it is only recently returning to prominence because of a deteriorating situation there.
Computer programer Susan French said the war in Iraq derailed the United States from its primary mission in Afghanistan and the reason why it faced a "quagmire" in both places was because Iraq had proved a distraction.
"Our attention was not in the right place and so we lost the prize," said French, who lives in Cincinnati, Ohio.
PARTISAN LINES BLURRED
Afghanistan has never excited the partisan divisions among Americans raised by the Iraq war, and Obama's troop increase there could further blur that divide. Some Republicans said they supported the troop increase and Obama's strategy.
"If the mission is to capture (Osama) bin Laden, I totally support it," said Norm Burns, of Rockwood, Tennessee, who described himself as a hawkish Republican.
But he sounded a note of caution. "As far as I can tell, all we are doing in Afghanistan is stumbling around and annoying the natives so it could become another Vietnam."
At the other end of the ideological spectrum, anti-war activist Gloria Tatum, who demonstrated against the Iraq conflict, said she had "mixed feelings" about Afghanistan.
"Something needs to be done but I'm not sure I have the answers," Tatum said.
Tim Franzen said he and other peace activists opposed the war in Afghanistan because it was an occupation like Iraq and unpopular with Afghans. But he acknowledged it was hard to drum up public support for his position.
"We know that Afghanistan was generally thought of as the 'good war' that we were supposed to be in, a more righteous war (than Iraq)," said Franzen, who works for the American Friends Service Committee, an anti-war group founded by Quakers to promote non-violence in 1917.
But even some Republicans said the cost of the war in Iraq in terms of U.S. lives and a spiraling federal budget deficit left them wary of greater involvement in Afghanistan.
Robert Jones of Kennesaw, Georgia, said he supported a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan because the tactic had worked in Iraq. But he added:
"People have concerns because we are scheduled to get out of Iraq but we are getting in deeper in Afghanistan. America is war weary and people would like to see a lot less money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan." (Additional reporting by Kathleen Baydala in Mississippi and Ed Stoddard in Texas; Editing Pascal Fletcher and Chris Wilson)
Last edited:
