Poll: Americans Growing More Negative About Success in Afghanistan

But more than half still support the decision to use military force.

U.S. Marines walk on top of their Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) while on patrol near the American military compound at Kandahar Airport January 16, 2002 in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
National Journal
Jordain Carney
Jan. 31, 2014, 3:05 a.m.

More than half of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve the United States has mostly failed to achieve its goals with the war in Afgh­anistan, ac­cord­ing to a poll re­leased Thursday.

The USA Today/Pew Re­search Cen­ter poll is a stark con­trast to one re­leased in June 2011 fol­low­ing the death of Osama bin Laden. At that time, 58 per­cent said they be­lieved the United States would achieve its goals in Afgh­anistan.

Fifty-two per­cent of Amer­ic­ans said the United States has mostly failed to achieve its goals in the coun­try, com­pared with 38 per­cent who said the U.S. has mostly suc­ceeded, ac­cord­ing to Thursday’s poll.

The poll was con­duc­ted Jan. 15-19 among 1,504 adults, with a mar­gin of er­ror of plus or minus 2.9 per­cent­age points.

Des­pite un­cer­tainty over the United States’ reach­ing its goals, 51 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans said the de­cision to use mil­it­ary force was the right one, com­pared with 41 per­cent who said it wasn’t. In Janu­ary 2009, 64 per­cent said us­ing mil­it­ary force was the right call.

And there’s little par­tis­an di­vide on wheth­er the United States has achieved its goals. Fifty-two per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans said it has mostly failed, com­pared with 48 per­cent of Demo­crats and 54 per­cent of in­de­pend­ents.

A ques­tion on wheth­er the United States had achieved its goals in Ir­aq garnered nearly ex­act res­ults. Fifty-two per­cent said the United States had mostly failed, while 37 per­cent be­lieve it has mostly suc­ceeded.

The poll comes as U.S. of­fi­cials and NATO al­lies are un­cer­tain what — if any — mil­it­ary in­volve­ment they will have in Afgh­anistan after this year. U.S.-Afghan re­la­tions have been trained over Pres­id­ent Ham­id Kar­zai’s re­fus­al to sign a bi­lat­er­al se­cur­ity agree­ment un­til after the coun­try’s elec­tions later this year. U.S. of­fi­cials have ar­gued that delay­ing the sign­ing hurts mil­it­ary plan­ning and in­creases the chance that the United States will re­move all of its troops by the end of the 2014.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×