General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday I learned everyone was against the Afghan war from the beginning
I mean, 88% support when we went in.
But yes, everyone knew right from the start it was a bad idea and wanted nothing to do with it.
I wonder if people are just muddling Afghanistan with Iraq in their memories.
Because the American people, Republicans and Democrats, very much wanted in there after 9/11. Now, even journalists, who are getting called out left and right, are going, "We knew it was a bad idea and opposed it . . ." Johnny, roll the tape.
People do know the Internet exists, right? That there's video and posts and web pages that go back to 2001?
This is like me going growing my hair out and declaring I have always been against short hair. There are, you know, pictures.

Dr. Shepper
(3,104 posts)Especially those of us who were protesting these wars from the very beginning. So many deaths - and for what?
maxsolomon
(35,742 posts)We and our allies bought time, 19 years, for Afghanistan to have some semblance of civil society. Women to attend school, kites to be flown again, music to be played, Buddhist statues to not be destroyed.
It's not enough, I know.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)every time.
Bev54
(11,976 posts)went into Afghanistan with the US to get rid of AL Qaeda and most of us (Canadian) pulled our troops out after several years because we were not there for a forever war, the mission was completed. We did not agree with the invasion of Iraq and did not participate. I think people are getting their countries and missions mixed up.
snowybirdie
(5,841 posts)going in and getting the men who planned 9/11 and were hiding there. Our mistake was letting them get away, and staying for 20 years with no real exit plan. Good in the beginning but awful now!
Haggard Celine
(17,087 posts)I thought they were going to go in there and capture the bad guys. I thought they might have to drop some bombs, and they did, but things were really vague past that point. I didn't consider at the time how much time we would spend there. It really didn't cross my mind.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Iraq war started in 2003.. Afghanistan started in 2001. Most Americans agreed with Afghanistan war during the early years. The Iraq war was protested by millions even before it started.
Blues Heron
(6,334 posts)Honestly Abe, that's just absurd.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Is either confused or they are part of a very tiny percentage of people against the war at that point. The vast majority agreed with it.
Heres an example of the confusion..
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15740478
Blues Heron
(6,334 posts)that's really preposterous.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)That person was referring to protests in 2003. The Afghanistan war started in 2001. Those protests in 2003 were about Iraq. I was there.
Blues Heron
(6,334 posts)Against the Bush war machine that was out of control. Nobody is confusing Iraq with Afghanistan - that's ludicrous.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Afghanistan war at that point was seen as being incredibly successful. The Taliban had collapsed and US was already talking about ending major conflict and establishing new government with free elections and rebuilding the country. There wasnt much negative news about Afghanistan at that point and few were against it.
Blues Heron
(6,334 posts)"cool story bro" and leave it at that.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)
SmittyWerben
(825 posts)You present facts then get dismissed. Interesting to see on DU since that seems to be the tactic of another party.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Thanks for the comment.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's easy to confuse the two when our bias depends on doing so. Even easier when presented with anecdotal evidence.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)We were not at all confused, and I deeply resent your claiming that we were, as I resented those who pooh-poohed our serious concerns at the time. We just saw the writing on the wall. That would come to fruition later in the war on Iraq, when many more turned out to demonstrate, but again to no avail.
But yes, they were desolate demonstrations against the grain of public opinion while the US was consumed by the desire for revenge for 9/11. It's just one of those occasions over the past half-century or so where the ability to say "told you so" is no consolation.
On September 29, 2001, as many as 20,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C., United States, denouncing the impending United States invasion of Afghanistan. The protests were organized by the recently formed A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. Thousands gathered at Meridian Hill Park (Malcolm X Park) and marched downtown, while elsewhere members of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence clashed briefly with police on their way to Edward R. Murrow Park, across from the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF. Both groups of marchers converged on a rally at the Freedom Plaza.
In San Francisco almost 10,000 people converged on a park in San Francisco's Mission District to denounce the Bush administration's plans for military intervention in Afghanistan.
In Los Angeles roughly 2,500 protesters marched through the streets of Westwood.
In New York City 3,000 to 5,000 people took part in a peace march at Union Square.
...
In Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, around 1,500 people gathered in George Square for a rally against the military action in Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_war_in_Afghanistan
I was part of the Glasgow demonstration.
Your questions downthread "... no need to go after Bin laden? Just let him go and hope he behaves and no more 9/11s?" echo the ridicule we faced all too often at the time. After a few decades of it, it's water off a duck's back. Bin Laden was not killed or captured as a result of the military action. The fact there have been "no more 9/11's" is a matter of good fortune.
Your trumpeted "success" of the early Afghanistan years encouraged the Bush II administration and the PNAC to their follies in Iraq. That success looks pretty hollow now, huh?
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)If you believe the polling at the time it was 90+ percent approval. I agreed with it at the time and still think it was the right decision based on the situation. Clearly staying there 20 years was a mistake but few thought that would happen back then.
Also, one could argue flushing Bin laden out of Afghanistan into Pakistan ultimately helped find and kill him. So just that could be a justification for the war.
Also, there were early success stories out of Afghanistan. The Taliban were forced out. There were elections. Women rights restored. Reconstruction started. Of course it all fell apart when the Taliban regained strength and the Afghans themselves didnt fight back.
I still think many are not remembering how they felt back then. Clearly you and those who protested with you are an exception.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)as a post-justification for the Bush regime/PNAC's opportunistic actions.
The military action in Afghanistan began in 2001. Bin Laden was ultimately killed in 2011.
That's a heckuva long flush!
It's almost as if there was little interest in bin Laden's whereabouts and survival in the intervening years. A cynic might say that's because he'd served his purpose and was of no further interest or use.
We were a tiny percentage as an opposition. We knew we were banging our heads against a brick wall at the time, but we still turned out and argued vociferously against the tactics adopted, the ignoring of Saudi Arabians' roles in the 9/11 attacks, and the total lack of an exit strategy beyond "ach, it'll all work out" (that last argument would be reprised for Iraq not long after).
"The vast majority agreed with it" was what we were up against. Vast majorities have been in favour of all sorts of things throughout history. Some of them have led to wrongs we're struggling to right to this day.
Anyway, as some replies under the OP show, quite a few who were in favour of some sort of action against al Qaeda (conflated with Afghanistan) were not necessarily in favour of the form of action that was taken.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)If he had not been "flushed" out he would likely have remained in his well protected Tora Bora cave complex in Afghanistan.
Yeah it took a long time to finally get him but flushing him out of his cave likely helped.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)"Flushing him out" as was done just meant he was able to find safe harbour elsewhere, and almost certainly better access to communications and a degree of free movement - which it's notable he didn't put to more destructive purpose (for which we should all be thankful).
The fact he didn't is not because of the "success" of the adventurism in Afghanistan. Within a couple of years all the focus was on Saddam and Iraq as the PNAC steamrollered on, as many of we demonstrators had feared, and bin Laden just conveniently disappeared.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)As the vast majority of Americans agreed with as well. There were legitimate reasons to invade regardless of who was president. The entire 20 year war was clearly a mistake.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)Now you're sounding as confused as those braggarts who assured us that "shock and awe" was all that was required in modern warfare in the Middle East and there was no need to commit feet on the ground in significant numbers for extended periods.
That was Rumsfeld's doctrine. It allowed bin Laden to escape when he wasn't killed in the initial strikes, just as porous borders became a treacherous bidirectional problem in Iraq later.
There were arguably grounds for seeking out, and killing if necessary, bin Laden (and his associates/allies, unless the idea is he was a one-man army).
That did not require invading and taking control over the whole of Afghanistan. The subsequent failure of nation-building had happened often enough in the past that it should have been utterly predictable, along with the dangers of becoming entrenched in yet another unwinnable ground war, which America should know all about.
But a different course of action wouldn't have served the PNAC's agenda. The "legitimate reasons" were a smokescreen for it.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)My simple point is that there were clear justifications for invading Afghanistan and most of America agreed with it.. including the vast majority of Democrats. Denying that now is like reinventing history.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)I'm pointing out there was arguably justification for some action, but you keep claiming that invasion was justified, and that seems to be the beginning and end of it for you.
I'm then pointing out the problems with invading a country on a grand scale and half-heartedly trying to refashion it without devoting the vast resources that would be necessary even if success was possible.
Invading's the easy part. It seldom stops there (which is why folks like me keep banging on about exit strategies whenever the latest invasion or war with our countries' involvement becomes a prospect). Certainly not in historical flashpoints like Afghanistan. It has knock-on effects, mission creep, the sunk cost fallacy comes into play. And before you know it, 20 years have passed.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)There was a serious sense of urgency as we thought there might be more 9/11's in the planning stages. Can you imagine the outcry if we didnt go after Bin laden quickly and forcefully and then another terror event happened?
No one was thinking 10 or 20 years ahead. That was not part of the decision making and rightly so. Action had to be taken immediately.
Furthermore we could have left at any point years later but no one had guts to do it until Joe Biden.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 and much of bin Laden's funding. That wasn't Afghanistan.
"Going after" bin Laden ended up being purely performative - I'm sure it looked impressive on TV. Then it went on the back burner for 10 years.
So by your logic, where was the outcry when the seriously urgent quick and forceful immediate attempt to bomb bin Laden out of existence failed miserably?
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Im done. Ciao.
Emrys
(8,125 posts)GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)We heard and read all about the MASSIVE death and destruction on both sides, all for nothing. We saw it contribute to the collapse of the USSR. All for nothing. We knew the waste of blood and treasure would be inevitable for us, too. And, so it was.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Just let him go and hope he behaves and no more 9/11s?
GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)Remind me where Bin Laden was captured and killed, and how that was done. (Hint: Not in Afghanistan. Not with an entire army's worth of troops.) Not to mention that he has been dead for years. So, why the fuck were we still there all these years later????
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Based on most intelligence reports Bin laden was still in Afghanistan when the war first started. He escaped at some point to Pakistan.
GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)Some of us just don't believe that starting a war in that hellhole was the way to go about getting him. And, it turns out, that's not how they got him--not even after 10 years of being there.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)There was a serious sense of urgency as we thought there might be more 9/11's in the planning stages. Can you imagine the outcry if we didnt go after him quickly and forcefully and then another terror event happened?
GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)Without all the bloodshed and looting of our treasury. They were whipped up into wanting a war with a bunch of lies, just like they were with Iraq. Lots of people wanted us to nuke the place, too. Just because lots of people want something, it doesn't make it right.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Bin laden was there. The Taliban did harbor him. There were AQ training camps in Afghanistan.
Where were the lies??
GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)They had no fucking idea what they were getting us into, while pretending otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)The justification was based on the three things I posted before:
-- Bin laden was there.
-- The Taliban did harbor him.
-- There were AQ training camps in Afghanistan.
That was enough for me and most other Americans.
Response to honest.abe (Reply #68)
GoCubsGo This message was self-deleted by its author.
honest.abe
(9,238 posts)I still think many are not remembering clearly how they felt back then. That assertion remains.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)There was no real political choice but to go into Afghanistan and kill some people. And it went reasonably well at the start. But then the mission creep started.
GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)Including intelligence-gathering and surgical strikes. Which is what wound up getting Bin Laden--TEN fucking years later. Bush chose poorly.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)But I remember that time very clearly, and the public wanted boots on the ground kicking ass. And that is what they got, and as I remember it went much better than predicted (for a while).
GoCubsGo
(33,422 posts)And, the most gutless one. Also, "better than predicted" isn't saying much.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)a quagmire from the start. Turned out the first overt military action was several weeks after 9/11 and the Taliban government had collapsed before Thanksgiving (I think). And I believe there was a lot of help from the Afghanis (Northern Alliance). The quagmire came later.
Skittles
(161,651 posts)um....NO
Bin Laden should have been targeted from the start - the rest was utter bullshit
IT WAS SAUDI ARABIA WHO FINANCED THE HIJACKERS, NOT AFGHANISTAN.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)They were in Afghanistan and the US military had people there within a couple weeks. Without 100% cooperation from the Taliban (an impossibility) the Afghanistan government would have to be toppled along the way. No one cared about the human rights of the Afghans or whether girls could go to school.
I remember the mood of people, and the desire for retribution, like it was yesterday. What was going to happen was not complicated and it was 100% predictable. The president was just the mouthpiece.
Skittles
(161,651 posts)and it utterly sickened me how many people went along with the insanity
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)hurting Bush politically, and so he tried to deemphasize it publicly. But now we know it was still a super high priority objective internally.
I recently heard about a survey about the atomic bomb and Japan, taken around that time. About 25% of Americans wished we could have dropped many more. There was some of that emotion going on when it came to Afghanistan in 2001/2002.
Skittles
(161,651 posts)I always knew it was fool's errand.....I watched in dismay as America rallied around that warmongering piece of SHIT Dubya.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)And sent black ops troops to find Bin Laden
Which is what we did to kill him.
BComplex
(9,233 posts)owned the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, and was related to the royal family there. Saudi Arabia has been trying to destroy the US for generations...in spite of the oil companies insisting that they are our "allies". All lies.
UpInArms
(52,065 posts)Seeing as how most of those involved were from Saudi Arabia
including osama bin laden
Just because bin laden was holed up in Afghanistan, did not make all those people a part of 911
The bush/Cheney mob wanted war
see the PNAC papers
look at who signed them
they wanted Clinton to attack Iraq
Folks try to conflate who was behind all of it
The NYTs was rah rah-ing and every corporate news whore was creaming their jeans at the ratings that war would get them
crickets
(26,158 posts)CentralMass
(15,846 posts)Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)And then left after a year or so.
A lesson to be learned for the future. It wouldn't surprise me if we have to do it again.
MoonRiver
(36,974 posts)Sympthsical
(10,411 posts)Americans largely haven't been nearly so reflective over time as they are now claiming they were.
I just hate bandwagon revisionism. It's all over the place this weekend.
MoonRiver
(36,974 posts)Apparently Keven McCarthy threw a real temper tantrum against Biden during the House briefing today. Like his side wasn't all over this situation!
Chainfire
(17,757 posts)In a few years, no one will have ever supported him. At the end of WWII, you could not find a dozen Nazis in all of Germany...
After we are gone from Afghanistan, the Republicans will try to sponsor another attack to pin on the Afghan people in order to blame Biden for the withdrawal before the next election. Wait for it.
Perhaps the next time the Saudis attack us, we can make war on Canada or Mexico to save the enormous shipping cost of fighting on the other side of the world.
Shellback Squid
(9,212 posts)supplies from Afghanistan to go to war with Iraq before we accomplished our objectives left us open to failure at
the outset, fuck bush* fuck cheney, fuck condoleeza, and I hope rumsfeld is in that special place in hell.
Mad_Machine76
(24,821 posts)DinahMoeHum
(22,642 posts)Anything beyond that, unh unh.
That part of the world ain't no place for a regular army.
The minute Bush did that and expanded it. . .pfft!
stopdiggin
(13,297 posts)had almost universal backing (U.S. and international). Occupation and 'nation building' also had strong support - for a while.
Revisionist history doesn't really help. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the current "should never have been .." narrative is any more sound, or helpful. Monday morning quarterbacking is cheap and easy - foreign policy (and yes, every great country has to have one) a whole lot less so.
treestar
(82,383 posts)who were too young to follow it when it started now have opinions and others have forgotten.
UnderThisLaw
(325 posts)that we should stay in Afghanistan to protect the rights of its women, but other countries with similar abuses arent worth mentioning
Mad_Machine76
(24,821 posts)But only insofar as it was to get rid of Al-Queda and the Taliban Government that harbored them. But Bush fumbled and here we are 20 years later (!) with very little to show for it. Al-Queda is largely smashed and Bin Laden is long gone but we accomplished very little else.
CentralMass
(15,846 posts)Taliban to originally take control of the country. It looks in the end we hav haven't gained much ground.
Mad_Machine76
(24,821 posts)Delphinus
(12,177 posts)when we first bombed them, I called my Mom, crying, asking why! I know I wrote letters to congress, etc., about this, telling them I did not want us there, and not a one of them listened.
I fear for anyone left there that will be "living" under Taliban rule. I fear and weep.
MichMan
(14,065 posts)with the numbers of those who were actually there
chowder66
(10,106 posts)special teams to Afghanistan to get him but then basically ended that mission to focus on Iraq. I think they needed more troops and didn't get them and Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. That is when I remember thinking WTF and was against everything that came after.
maxsolomon
(35,742 posts)So much 20/20 hindsight and Binary Judgment on DU: "we should NEVER have been there", etc.
We had a damn good reason. 9/11 is a damn good reason.
Agreed as did the vast majority of Americans back then when the war started.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)So many people claim to have been there, if it were true, the size of the crowd would be in the millions. lol
Are you really surprised by this? I doubt it. The journos doing it are a disgrace.
bluecollar2
(3,622 posts)For refusing to give up Bin Laden and providing safe haven for Al Qaeda.
We took our eye off the ball going after Iraq. We should have spent the money on Afghanistan and giving Pakistan a swift kick in the ass for aiding and abetting....
I feel for the people of Afghanistan. They are going to be tested.
David__77
(23,895 posts)
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)There was high bipartisan support. 9/11 had just happened, and we were out for revenge.
And we fairly successful in getting rid of Al-Qaeda. When we finally killed OBL, we should have started the move out.
It would have been perfect timing for Obama but he didn't take advantage of it. Huge missed opportunity.
panader0
(25,816 posts)So let's invade Afghanistan! The reason was that the hijackers had trained there, perhaps with
Bin Laden, who the US supported when he was with the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets.
Don't forget, Mohammed Atta trained in Florida as well and a couple hijackers trained in Arizona
to learn how to fly. There are many parts of this story that have not been revealed.
Why did the US let Osama Bin Laden escape from Torah Bora?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15737603
I must have been in the 12% that did not support going into Afghanistan.
Sunsky
(1,876 posts)Don't forget the Bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals were allowed the flee the country after 9-11.
Sunsky
(1,876 posts)But I was against it. I have been very vocal about my opposition then and throughout the years. I didn't think we should harm innocent people because of the actions of their leaders. It would only further destabilize the region. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, not the Afghan people or the Taliban. But, I must say that I'm generally anti-war, so that may have shaped my point of view. Plus, I have been a longtime Randi Rhodes listener and she would talk about the tumultuous history of the region. I've been listening to leftwing talk radio since I was a teenager, and I remember many callers opposing the Afghan war, given its history.
manicdem
(515 posts)Invading and occupying Afghanistan was needed to stop, or at least hold off, Al Qaeda. 9/11 wasn't the only Al Qaeda attack, they have been bombing and attacking American and other countries all of the world.
We're not seeing the results if we didn't invade. If we did airstrikes instead of invasion, it would have limited effects on the Taliban and Al Qaeda and they would be even more emboldened to attack cowardly Americans. The chart in the OP would be very different if they did a 2nd 9/11 scale attack.
AZProgressive
(29,399 posts)But I was only 15 when 9/11 happened. Looking back I prefer the peace and prosperity of the 90s.
Bettie
(17,684 posts)there was a goal and, well, a plan.
Seems that wasn't the case at all.
BannonsLiver
(18,638 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)I was against the war in Vietnam while I was in the army, I was against invading Grenada, I was against invading Afghanistan, and I was against invading Iraq. I was for Kuwait since we basically told Saddam it was okay if he invaded Kuwait.
betsuni
(27,432 posts)in Afghanistan.
Skittles
(161,651 posts)I KNEW he would use 9/11 as an excuse to start senseless wars
lunatica
(53,410 posts)We also demonstrated against the Iraq war in San Francisco.
I remember demonstrations all over the US and the world. Big ones.