A Majority of Military Veterans Think the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq Were a Mistake

And they’re even more opposed to Trump’s possible war with Iran.

American soldiers patrol near the site of a US bombing during an operation against Islamic State (IS) militants in the Achin district of Afghanistan's Nangarhar province on April 15, 2017. Noorullah Shirzada/AFP/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

It’s not just a majority of Americans who think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a catastrophic mistake. Military veterans now increasingly say the Bush-era conflicts were not worth it, according to a Pew Research Center survey released Wednesday.

Sixty-four percent of the 1,284 veterans interviewed by Pew said the Iraq invasion was not worth fighting, while 58 percent similarly dismissed the 17-year Afghanistan conflict as a waste. “Veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are no more supportive of those wars than those who did not serve in these wars,” Pew researchers Ruth Igielnik and Kim Parker wrote. “And views do not differ based on rank or combat experience.”

A concurrent poll of civilian views reached the same, general result. By substantial quantities, Americans in and out of uniform now view the several-trillion-dollar wars as a mistake. 

“Our veterans have borne the brunt of these policy mistakes and it is not surprising they would be wary of more endless war abroad while also not looking kindly on our current wars,” says Nate Anderson, executive director of the conservative Concerned Veterans for America organization, in a statement. 

After 73 percent of Americans endorsed President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, support for the US government’s Middle East wars has precipitously declined. By December 2007, only 36 percent of Americans supported the Iraq War.

The Afghanistan conflict enjoyed broader support at the start of President Barack Obama’s presidency, but that approval eroded during his second term, even though Republicans continue to view both wars more favorably than Democrats.

Once Donald Trump entered the White House, more than half of Americans believed the US had failed in its mission in Afghanistan. 

“People came to realize over time that there was no real strategy for our engagement,” says Will Goodwin, director of government relations at VoteVets, a progressive advocacy group. “It wasn’t clear what the national security interest was.”

Trump, famously, seemed to agree with that sentiment. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he said US officials made a “terrible mistake getting involved” in Afghanistan and, despite initially supporting the Iraq War, later called it a “disaster.” He also said Bush’s Middle East wars constituted the “worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country.”

The American military presence in Syria has been equally as unpopular among veterans, researchers have found. Fifty-five percent of them think the five-year intervention in Syria, launched by Obama in opposition to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, has not been worth it. Only 42 percent support it. Trump promised in December to withdraw roughly 2,000 American troops from Syria, sparking opposition from the State Department and Pentagon, and eventually leading to the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis. The president ultimately agreed to let 400 troops stay in the country.

Last year, the Pentagon unveiled a national defense strategy geared at orienting the nation’s military away from fighting terrorism in the Middle East and toward competition with China and Russia, but active duty service members interviewed by Military Times were not as quick to believe the shift would occur.

In a survey conducted by the defense-focused publication in the fall, nearly 45 percent of respondents said they worry the US would “be drawn into another major military conflict soon.” Months later, the Trump administration has veered toward the possibility of a war with Iran and veterans are not happy. 

Only 6 percent of veterans and 13 percent of military households support the US being more engaged in conflicts around the world, according to a poll commissioned by Concerned Veterans for America in April. The results mirror a poll jointly conducted by CVA and VoteVets last month that showed voters in several swing districts widely disapprove of a military confrontation with Iran. 

“With some in Washington beating the drum for action against Iran, it is important we learn from the past,” Anderson says. “Our leaders owe it to veterans and service-members to not repeat the same mistakes.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate