Did anyone support the invasion of Afghanistan but not the invasion of Iraq?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

There are, of course, lots of people who supported both (like most right-wingers) or neither (like a majority of DUers), and there are quite a lot of people who thought that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified but the invasion of Iraq was not (I waver between the latter two positions - invading Afghanistan and spending time and effort setting up a functioning state there would probably, but by no means certainly, have done more good than harm; invading it and then going on to Iraq has been a catastrophe).

But are there any groups of people who think that invading Afghanistan was a bad idea, but invading Iraq was worthwhile? Or is one strictly more popular than the other?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Saddam, Uday and Qusay.... I'm guessin'. n/t

[Chemisse]

2. I supported going into Afghanistan

It seemed connected to 9/11 via the Taliban support of Al Qaeda. Did anybody actually oppose it? In the weeks after 9/11, we were all waiting for the 'sleeping giant' to start stomping; it was must a matter of where.

I was violently opposed to attacking Iraq. It now seems the obvious stance, but at the time it was like a tidal wave with Democrats looking dumbstruck at the wave coming, the getting swept up helplessly in the flow. I wasn't on DU then (was there a DU then?) and I heard NO dissenting voices.

I am cooling off toward fighting in Afghanistan. The moment has passed, where we could have had quick vengeance then pulled out. Now it is just another Iraq, albeit with better justification at the start.

[nosmokes]

3. Yes. Many people were all for going after the people that actually

attacked the towers and the pentagon and were pretty upset when the top notch units originally sent to Afghanistan were redeployed to Iraq when dreams of flower girls fainting at the sight of blonde warriors and red, white and blue bunting hanging from mosques went up in smoke, as it were.

[Peregrine]

4. I had no problem with the afghan invasion

I wouldn't have tried to build a government. My mission was to kill Taliban. I'd partition Afghanistan and give parts to its neighbors, including Iran for concessions on their nuclear program.

[tj2001]

5. Just obliterate the Taliban in their caves and get out

[EFerrari]

6. Against both. We were never going to catch bin Laden with bombs.

[Wickerman]

7. I was not in support of either

And its not because I am a total pacifist. I served in the US Air Force for 5 years. I thought the rush into Afghanistan was premature. We went in without a plan and a clear objective and as many warned, with no exit strategy. Wash, rinse, repeat and ya got the same thing in Iraq.

Wrong time, Wrong Administration. Wrong Statergery.

[Laelth]

8. I suspect so. Many, I would think.

I supported neither, but I am rarely in the majority on any opinion in the United States.

:dem:

-Laelth

[aquart]

9. No, I thought both were stupid mistakes.

But all I could do was stand there yelling, while Bush took over 4,000 American lives using the excuse of losing 3,000 American lives.

Yet no one will hang that murderer of Americans.

[Alamuti Lotus]

10. Are a majority of DUers opposed to both?

Any thread on the subject is often flooded with pro-war sentiment of varying degrees, the more honest among them proudly say they wanted a pound of flesh to be cut from the bodies of Afghans (their version uses less poetic license, but speaks the same sentiment). Many openly support the Afghan crusade especially now that their sockpuppet is the one appearing to command it; prior to that, the primary complain was that "Bush wasn't doing 'the job' well enough".

[rug]

11. It's Dumb War versus Dumberer War.

Not to mention they're both unwarranted homicidal adventures.

[scarletwoman]

12. Since I was here on DU in those days, I can tell you that MOST DUers supported invading Afghanistan.

And those very few of us who spoke against it at that time were roundly derided and despised.

I've noticed over the years that it's become more fashionable to claim that lots of DUers were against the Afghanistan invasion from the beginning, but it's a bald-faced lie. I could count maybe half a dozen of us at most who were willing to speak out against it in 2001.

The majority of DUers were FOR invading Afghanistan. As one of the then-marginalized few who were NOT, I really resent seeing this kind of revisionist history that claims "a majority of DUers" were against it. That was absolutely NOT the case!

sw

[JuniperLea]

17. Yep...

Some were for it before they were against it.

I think we screwed both countries, and we deserted our own troops in Afghanistan when they really needed us, to go to war with Iraq.

We need to get out of both countries, but we need to do it in a smart way. We broke them; we are responsible for at least trying to exit gracefully.

There is way too much revisionist history at DU... it makes us look as bad as the bad guys.

[scarletwoman]

21. Thank you for noticing my post. I agree: "There is way too much revisionist history at DU"

Lest it be forgotten, there were plenty of DUers who were FOR the Iraq invasion, too. They weren't in the majority -- like the pro-Afghanistan invasion people were -- but they still comprised a large enough minority that lots of time and energy was spent on refuting them.

As for the "you broke it, you fix it" school of thought -- I'm definitely an agnostic on that point. I abhor militarism, period. If we really wanted to help repair those countries we would be sending more doctors and teachers, not more soldiers.

sw

[JuniperLea]

45. You make an excellent point...

We should be helping the doctors and teachers who fled their countries find safe passage back, and help them rebuild.

[hfojvt]

26. a majority of DUers are against it now perhaps

keeping in mind that there are at least 30 times as many DUers now as there were in 2001.

[scarletwoman]

37. A majority against it NOW, yes. But that was definitely not the case in 2001.

Your point about there being many more DUers now is taken. However, among those here in 2001, the majority sentiment was decidedly pro-Afghanistan invasion.

Hell, right after 9/11 there were people posting here that we needed to get behind the president. I could name a very well-known DUer who posted exactly that -- "we need to support our president" (which was GWBush, of course) -- but I won't because I understand that he was gripped by an excess of irrationality in response to the terrorist attacks, and was not alone in experiencing such a reaction.

Me, I always thought from the moment I saw the second plane strike the second WTC tower on TV that morning that bushco had a hand in it somehow. So I was far less inclined to seek vengence in attacking a Third World country.

sw

[Uzybone]

27. The part about most DUers being for Afghanistan is true

the part for getting derided and despised for it is hyperbole.

[scarletwoman]

35. I'm speaking of my own experience of speaking out against the Afghanistan invasion in 2001.

I WAS derided and attacked for expressing my anti-Afghanistan invasion viewpoint, by all the good flag-waving DUers who wanted revenge for 9/11.

The nationalistic, militaristic ferver that gripped most DUers in the days after the September 11, 2001 attacks was real and widespread.

There were damn few of us expressing dismay and dissent about the Afghanistan invasion.

sw

[nosmokes]

39. Yeah, it was a large majority of us that supported the Afghan Invasion.

[muntrv]

13. I was for going after the Bin Laden and his gang. Iraq was a diversion.

[Alamuti Lotus]

15. No--Iraq was "business as usual", and a big part of the reason

Bin Laden has a gang in the first place.

[scheming daemons]

14. I did.

[XemaSab]

16. I thought Iraq was a terrible idea

but Afghanistan needed some intervention.

[stray cat]

18. Yes - Obama for one supported Afghanistan but not Iraq

I think you reversed the order in the title.

[Fumesucker]

19. I never was completely convinced that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11

9/11 galvanized me into research mode and I found Stan Goff very quickly, Stan is a military historian who as an enlisted man taught Military Science at West Point, an unusual thing. Mr Goff was and is skeptical of the entire government 9/11 story and gave what seems to me to be good reasons from the perspective of someone with a deep knowledge of the military for that skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Goff

So no, I wasn't a supporter of invading Afghanistan and, in the fullness of hindsight, I think I was more correct than the supporters.

We have now been in Afghanistan nearly twice as long as it took to defeat the entire military might of the Axis powers in WWII and there is no end in sight. At the beginning of WWII Nazi Germany was the premiere military force on the planet and Japan had a military empire that stretched over much of western Asia, Afghanistan is a nation of goatherds and poppy farmers, the contrast could not be more stark.

[johnaries]

30. He released several videos taking credit for it. nt

[Fumesucker]

41. And you of course believe him.. right?

Let's not forget that Osama was a CIA asset from way back too..

And who was Director of the CIA for a number of years?

[TheWraith]

20. Yup. Right here.

I'm not sure you're right that a "majority of DUers" didn't/don't support Afghanistan.

[scarletwoman]

24. I will say straight out that he's not right about Afghanistan.

As I said in my post #12 above, I was here during those days. The few of us arguing against the Afghanistan invasion were GREATLY outnumbered by those who were for it.

sw

(edited to include my post number)

[Kievan Rus]

22. Afghanistan harbored the al-Qaeda network

We had to attack them and take these guys out. If we'd have committed all our forces to that country back then instead of our stupid quagmire in Iraq, we'd have won that war by now.

And of course, if Saint Ronald wouldn't have been dumb enough to give those psychos Stinger missiles and MILAN antitank rockets, we wouldn't have had to even gone there in the first place.

[scarletwoman]

29. The Taliban offered to turn Osama Bin Laden over to an Islamic court if the U.S. produced proof

that he was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. Colin Powell had promised a "White Paper" that would outline such a proof. This "White Paper" was never produced. The Taliban were under the mistaken assumption that the U.S. would act honorably. When it became clear that the U.S. would not act honorably, they felt no obligation to acquiesce to our demands.

[Uzybone]

23. I was for action against Afghanistan, but not a full blown invasion

A full blown invasion was not the best tactic IMO.

I have always been against the invasion of Iraq.

[frylock]

25. i was against both actions and can't help but wonder where all the war protests are these days..

not a damn thing has changed aside from the people in charge, and that seems to be OK with a lot of folks.

[johnaries]

28. Wait, your subject doesn't match your OP.

your subject says "Did anyone support the invasion of Afghanistan but not the invasion of Iraq?" but your OP asks "But are there any groups of people who think that invading Afghanistan was a bad idea, but invading Iraq was worthwhile? Or is one strictly more popular than the other?"

Personally I supported Afghanistan but not Iraq.

[rpannier]

31. Afghanistan Yes. Iraq No

[noamnety]

32. I oppose both

I stand with Veterans for Peace:

Whereas when the United States invaded the sovereign nation of Afghanistan, the only threats to our nation existing there were non-indigenous groups whom we ourselves had fostered and fed, and

Whereas history elsewhere, and almost seven years of struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have shown us that military force is not an effective solution to terrorist threats, and

Whereas our invasion has thrown Afghanistan and the region into political turmoil, diminishing the existing governments’ capability to deal with these threats with effective political and police methods, and

Whereas our wanton use of force and violence against the people of Afghanistan has inflamed world opinion against the United States and has diminished our nation’s ability to work toward world peace and our own security by non-violent means.

Therefore Be It Resolved Veterans For Peace calls on the government of the United States to immediately withdraw all military and intelligence forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Be It Further Resolved that Veterans For Peace calls on the government of the United States to provide humanitarian aid directly to the people of Afghanistan, in non-coercive forms, to help the Afghan people rebuild their own nation and their lives in cooperation with other nations in the region; and to allow the people of Afghanistan to freely determine their own government without interference by the US.

Be It Further Resolved that Veterans For Peace renounces the claim that the war in Afghanistan is somehow the “right” war and reaffirm our position that war must be abolished.

Approved at the 2008 VFP national convention

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Convention_Resolutions_2008.vp.html

[moondust]

33. Of course.

The status quo in Afghanistan was unacceptable with the oppressive Taliban in control and hosting terrorist training camps, etc. Unfortunately, the Taliban didn't get the hint and go away while Bush/Cheney/Republicans misled the world into needlessly invading Iraq (to get their utterly corrupt hands on all that oil).

[SeattleGirl]

34. I supported going into Afghanistan, but was completely against going

into Iraq.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Afghanistan was basically unavoidable, people wanted blood

Even if it is irrational to invade an entire country just to get a band of thugs it would've been almost impossible for a President to resist the political pressure to do so.

[HughMoran]

38. The majority of DUers did support Afghanistan - repeatedly in polls here too

Do some research, you'll see.

[Number23]

40. Many Americans support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq.

Or maybe support is not the right word. Are less opposed to the war in Afghanistan than the war in Iraq.

Many on DU, including myself, are no exception.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. THE POST IS RIGHT, THE TITLE IS WRONG!!!

Aaargh.

The question I meant to ask was, of course, the one I asked in the body of the post, not the one I asked in the title - to which the answer is obviously "yes".

That will teach me to post at one in the morning...

[Bigmack]

43. Couple of observations...

First, this country cannot afford any overseas adventures.

Second, nobody has ever pacified Afghanistan.. let alone "won".

Those two truths trump every other argument supporting staying in Afghanistan. Our fall from power as the world's only superpower will just be accelerated by getting our asses handed to us by yet another third-world country. Our financial decline will only be accelerated by pouring money down yet another bottomless hole. All this ignoring the loss of life and limb on both sides.

[Vogon_Glory]

44. Afghanistan Yes, Iraq NO

I was for the US confronting the Taliban even before the Bush brothers and Karl Rove stole the 2000 presidential election. I was under no illusion that the Taliban was going to respect womens' rights, tolerate other religions, or that the Taliban was going to act like a lawful member of the international community; the news leaked out about the Taliban's treatment of women as well as denunciations by the Clinton administration's State Department (That's right, I said the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S State Department) as well as the disturbing news about the al Qaeda training camps in Taliban-controlled territory was more than enough evidence about the Taliban's nature in my book.

I was strongly against Dubya's invasion of Iraq. I thought that the Iraq invasion was a blatant neo-colonial resource grab launched by by cynical, amoral corporate honchos and politicians taking advantage of patriotism and fear and that the invasion of Iraq would interfere with what the US SHOULD have been doing--finishing off the Taliban as a military force in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As we all know, the Boosh regime's Iraq invasion left Iraq worse off than it was before, weakened the US' strategic position, and allowed the Taliban to survive and regroup. I say that the Iraq invasion was the biggest long-term US strategic disaster since the War of 1812.

I'm sure that there are numerous DU peace activists who disagree with me, and who would really rather NOT think about the 50 percent of Afghanistan's population their desired agenda would disenfranchise and leave as being little short of chattel.