The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The Big Question: Will a new book reshape views on Afghanistan?

by Sydelle Moore - 09/22/10 5:15 PM ET

Brian Katulis, Center for American Progress, said:

Probably not much – the book will titillate Beltway elites and dominate the political talk shows for a bit, but most Americans are shielded from the costs and burdens of the war. The troops, others serving in Afghanistan, and their families are the only ones in this country who really feel the human impact of the Afghanistan war – and this group represents a narrow slice of the American public. The financial costs aren’t felt either, since we’ve been prosecuting wars on borrowed money for years now.

Political elites will use the book in the latest round of the blame game that serves as a substitute for real policy debate about America’s national security interests. But will this fundamentally shift public support for the war? I haven’t read the book yet, but based on the reporting, I’d say it is doubtful.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog Contributor, said:

This phrase is telling: “I have to say that,” Obama said. “I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.” It shows an aflicted management style. The path should be do the right thing as you see it; if you design yourself for history history will not receive you. This 9/11 has shown a country divided. It is a symptom. It shows that the Obama administration has not and does not know how to manage the needs of the heart. It makes our enemies stronger. They are waiting.

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at UC-Irvine, said:

People have made up their mind on the war. They don’t need Bob Woodward to inform their opinion – or to realize what a morass we’re in and what a bunch of asses are sending our soldiers into harm’s way.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

I think we have to wait for the book to be released to find that out: from the brief excerpts summarized in the New York Times, it seemsmostly like a recounting of inside baseball, who said what about whom– not very enlightening.