iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Afghanistan Shooting: Approval Of The War Is Down, But Is It Really Just Party Politics?

Afghanistan Shootings

Posted: 03/13/2012 6:00 pm

WASHINGTON -- The horrific killing of 16 Afghan civilians by an American soldier last weekend has exposed the war effort to renewed and deeper criticism among the American public.

But while many observers have come to see a recent spate of incidents -- including one in which soldiers burned Qurans -- as diminishing faith in the war, especially among Republicans, the numbers actually tell a more complicated story: Support for the ten-year-long war, the data show, has long had more to do with political affiliation than events on the ground in Afghanistan.

A recent Washington Post poll -- conducted in the days before the latest episode, but after the Quran-burning incident and after American soldiers were caught urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters -- reported that support for the war in Afghanistan among Republicans had dropped to record-low levels: 47 percent. Overall, 60 percent of Americans called the war not worth fighting.

"We have to either make the decision to make a full commitment, which this president has not done, or we have to decide to get out, and probably get out sooner," said GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum not long after the news of the massacre broke. His remarks, noted by the media as a sign of growing Republican disenchantment in the war, echoed earlier ones by fellow candidate Newt Gingrich, who said the war "may, frankly, not be doable."

But according to numbers compiled by Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, since almost precisely the moment that President Obama took office -- and thus inherited command of a long and costly war started seven years earlier by his Republican predecessor -- support for the Afghan war among Republicans has been in rapid decline, while support among Democrats has largely leveled off.

Before Obama was elected in November 2008, Jacobson said, support for the war in Afghanistan had dropped among Republicans to about 75 percent, a steady but gradual 20 point decline from its initial high seven years earlier. Over the following three and a half years, GOP support for the war dove another 25 points to about 50 percent -- about twice the rate of decline.

Among Democrats -- whose support for the war had plummeted from about 80 percent to about 40 percent by the time President George W. Bush left office -- war disapproval slowed significantly after Obama's inauguration. The rate of decline began to level off a couple years earlier, approximately the time Obama, a Democrat, began to describe Afghanistan as the "good war" during the campaign.

"You don't get the Republicans really falling out as long as Bush was in the White House," said Jacobson, who has previously published his findings in Presidential Studies Quarterly, but made updated data available to The Huffington Post. "But once he was out they don't have the commitment -- they were committed to the president more than the policy."

William Howell, a professor of American politics at the University of Chicago, says the Afghanistan data supports a theory he has advanced for year: that partisan positions drive perceptions of wars.

"There is this notion that is in my view really mistaken that somehow domestic politics disappear when it comes to waging wars abroad," said Howell, who is the author of a book on how partisan identity in Congress can limit effective checks on presidential war powers. "There is lots of evidence that suggests that Democrats and Republicans think about war very differently. What's really interesting about the Afghan data is that we see that even when we fix the war, you have them responding in very different ways."

Furthermore, Jacobson says it can be very difficult to correlate changes in public opinion about a war effort with specific events in the war itself.

In a chart accompanying the recent Washington Post poll, one clear dip in GOP support for the war appears to take place in early 2010, at a time when Obama was in the middle of implementing his surge effort in Afghanistan. (It is also shortly before he fired his top general there, Stanley McChrystal.)

But Jacobson says that his numbers show that Republicans tended to support the surge more than Democrats, and that the McChrystal event would have taken place too late to immediately impact these numbers.

Instead, he says, the steep drop in support likely correlates more closely to a steeper drop-off in Republican approval of Obama generally during that time, and particularly as his health care plan was enacted.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON -- The horrific killing of 16 Afghan civilians by an American soldier last weekend has exposed the war effort to renewed and deeper criticism among the American public. But while many o...
WASHINGTON -- The horrific killing of 16 Afghan civilians by an American soldier last weekend has exposed the war effort to renewed and deeper criticism among the American public. But while many o...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 164
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:43 AM on 03/16/2012
Is there EVER APPROVAL OF WAR buy ordinary humans, like me or you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David T Tower
10:37 AM on 03/16/2012
Doesn't matter which party is in power. The military industrial complex is alive and well. No shortage of boogymen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afgan, Egypt, etc. etc. etc. WMD's, Nukes, killing their defenseless peeps, you name it, there's a reason WE have to get involved. Where are all those anti-war protestors now? Now you have Obama you fall silent? We as Americans should be demanding answers; what is our mission? What is the end game? How much is it really costing us? How do we plan on funding these never ending police action/humanitarian/WARS!!!! Blame Obama, blame Bush? NO. I blame all of us! Who is the enemy? I'm a Republican and I want our troops home. Let these people live in the stone age for all I care. Why do we keep imposing our will on sovereign nations? Are we the current version of the Roman Empire?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bunty4321r
war veteran
02:47 AM on 03/16/2012
What might be the future but now put a full stop to all wars and get all the forces out of Afghanistan, and Iraq because Maliki in Iraq is planning to run the country over flooding the rivers of blood with blood so too Karzi+ Iran + Syria with the overt and covert support of Russia and India.

All these events have links with Israel's assassins PM threat to trigger off a world war which US President with the support of all Americans is trying to prevent. Would the audacious, obstinate and assassin PM of Israel abandon his mad venture or....doom the world with his illegal nuke holdings?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alexey Braguine
Author of Kingmaker, a novel
07:32 AM on 03/14/2012
After ten years most people in the US still can't find Afghanistan on a map, nor have a clue what the war is about or how much it costs them.

After ten years of horrors, massacres, bombing of weddings, funerals and general killing of civilians they still parrot such drivel as support our troops.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sujiai
Equality is an American value not a liberal idea
04:35 AM on 03/14/2012
Its quite compelling isn't it. The Republicans really do put their party first. I was taught in school that the government was for the people and by the people. Somewhere along the way the gop seems to have neglected this aspect.
04:18 AM on 03/14/2012
"We have to either make the decision to make a full commitment, which this president has not done, or we have to decide to get out, and probably get out sooner," said GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum..."

Like the "full commitment" made by the Bush admin.?! When the VICE President made the decision to HALVE the number of troop strength "his" commanders stated was needed to SECURE Afghanistan?!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Lindley
American in Paris
03:09 AM on 03/14/2012
There are only two Republican policies: never speak poorly of another Republican (freedom of speech not appreciated) and never support a policy we aren't in charge of (Party first, Country second, opposition is the devil).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
byronic
02:54 AM on 03/14/2012
Why does the US keep going to war? When was the last time the US could call the outcome a success? WWII? Certainly not Vietnam... Or Iraq... Or Afghanistan... Well, all of these were a success for a handful of military-industralists. And aren't the same people agitating for a new war on Iran?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:36 AM on 03/14/2012
blah blha blha...AAAAAAA........R or D support anything that lets them shove money up their rears..
Im so sick of all this BS..from both sides and from the propaganda systems pretending to be the news media...The political establishment are corporate Oligarchy henchmen for the elite and only care about their careers just like all the corporate power structure in place only care about profits at the expense of human life even their own wile they destroy the planet for the sake of blind greed..
Every scientists knows we are just steps away from a point of NO RETURN in regard to our environment..they talk about the closing door of opportunity to even do something to stop it.conservative estimates 5 years.. you are dealing with MADMEN as leaders and you will go dumb deff and ignorant right onto the abyss.... I suppose it just serves you right anyway...maybe your not worth saving!
02:08 AM on 03/14/2012
Which proves the President's point. Doing what's right comes second to getting him out of office.
House Republicans wanted to block small business tax cuts, something Republicans have supported for eons.

Huntsman speaks Cantonese and was asked to be our Ambassador to China. For representing his country he was attacked by his fellow Republicans, not because of his performance or qualifications but because the President asked him.

Country comes second to Republicans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnCocktosten
getmoneyout.com
01:59 AM on 03/14/2012
If any Republican is elected President (Paul doesn't count, he's a libertarian), we will not withdraw from Afghanistan, no matter the cost. Look at a map. The GOP will want to launch its war with Iran from a front that begins in Afghanistan.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard in CO
01:51 AM on 03/14/2012
America was justifiably outraged over the 9/11 attacks. Toppling Afghanistan's government and snuffing all Al-Quaeda we could get our hands on was supported - actually demanded - of Bush and Cheney. But, turning it into a long-term OCCUPATION invasion was a STUPID move from the start. Revenge was the motive for the invasion - but, excuses such as "Trying to install Democracy" were foolish before they were put into words. Rudyard Kipling wrote all about it, over 100 years ago, and no one's succeeded in changing that country's population. Soviet Union spent their fortune in blood and treasure there, for the same reason, but left with the same outcome - NOTHING to show for it. We are long past that time. Bring all our troops home, cut bait, and leave a note on the door: "Don't make us come back..." - It has now become pointless violence. Many innocents are dying. We need to rest our troops, too. Continual war is a form of mental illness. No one in their right minds should want it.
craig asia
Not part of upper-most 2%...yet!
01:44 AM on 03/14/2012
Drones and our ray gun will turn the tide. You will see.
The world is ours...well at least the "ours" that are American and are not "us" exactly.
craig asia
Not part of upper-most 2%...yet!
01:41 AM on 03/14/2012
In summary, if we give health care to children then republicans will no support wars. Makes sense.
01:36 AM on 03/14/2012
GOP are great on starting wars. Not to good on ending them.