Mr Khan said:
On the flip side, it was clear by then that Iraq was on its way down, and no-one ever seemed to care that much about the troops in Afghanistan.
|
Fatalities for US troops in Afghanistan in 2009 were more than double what they were in 2008, spiked another 150% the following year, and have remained at elevated levels since. Support for the war is at an all time low. So why is there so little protest about the continuation of this fool's errand? Sure, it may be partially attributable to the old idea that Afghanistan is the "good war" and Iraq the "bad one." Iraq was certainly the bloodier one, but it's pretty conspicuous that with so many people expressing willingness to wash our hands of that awful place there is no anti-Afghan War movement to be seen.
I suspect a lot of this is media driven. The nightly reports of carnage from Iraq did sort of turn Afghanistan into the forgotten war, and that's pretty understandable if not entirely excusable, but there is no reason now for the media derps to fixate on such trivial things whether or not the state should give gay marriages its stamp of approval while completely ignoring a war. The media is populated largely by establishment Democrat types who saw the anti-war lot as useful once upon a time and gave them a massive amount of coverage, which drove more people (most of whom just didn't like Bush, basically) to show up at protests, which in turn justified even more coverage. But covering such protests now that they're smaller, and especially now that the right team is in the White House, is unsurprisingly not high up on the agenda. Neither is having a serious discussion about an issue that will just make it harder on their guy.
