I am curious about how others see the two wars. Some people supported both war, others opposed both whereas other supported the Afgan campaign but opposed Iraq. I think that the situations were very dissimilar and they are completely different wars and the reasoning behind the two wars both for and against was completely different. What do you think?
It's an interesting subject. One of the general thoughts I've had on this subject lately is this: One of the standard complaints you hear from the right wing these days is that the left wing is only supporting Afghanistan because of Iraq. Afghanistan is perceived as a kind of a fall-back agreement position in political discussion for the left. In other words, conservatives feel that were it not for Iraq, the Bush administration would be getting pounded about Afghanistan. There is some justification for this opinion. After all, prior to the Afghan invasion we were given all sorts of scary scenarios by the left. Comparisons with the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, allusions to Vietnam, and so forth. Those fears turned out to be unfounded. Of course, there is another side to this argument -- we only put a small number of troops there, and the job is hardly finished! -- so liberals have a valid point in this area as welll, but that's beyond the scope of my point at the moment. The real problem I have with the above reasoning is that it's just not an accurate reflection of how politics works. There is *always* opposition to the actions of the ruling party in a democracy. Opposition is a necessary part of democracy, which is something that ideologues on both sides never really understand. That's not really the issue. The real issue is whether the public *by and large* accepts the action. In other words, what the majority thinks. Not just because that's what you need to take and hold power, but because that's what you need to justify calling yourself a democracy. When you look at it that way, had we not gone to Iraq, I believe that the majority of the country would have accepted our actions in Afghanistan. So in my opinion conservatives cannot stand on the complaint I listed in paragraphy two above. This reasoning renders that point moot. I guess this is a little off the subject of your question, but I think it's an interesting aspect of what you're talking about.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that had we not gone to Iraq, the Bush administration would be very much on top of the political situation in this country right now, and looking at a 70-80% approval rating, bolstered in part by a strong, growing economy. The points (many of them very valid and important) that many here have made regarding personal freedoms (my biggest concern with the administration), and so forth, would basically have been relegated to the back burner by the public at large. (Not saying that's right, mind you. It's just my analysis of the political situation, for what it's worth.)
Both countries had turned against US. It was not war against terrorism. It is war against anti-US regimes. Saddam is gone, Saudi royals feel relieved, satisfied & happy hence Bush too is satisfied with the accomplishment of his 'foremost' duty.
Afghanistan wasnt really a war, more of a U.S. supported Coup. We have troops there, but not anywhere near the 100,000+ we have in Iraq.
