Afghanistan: Afghan Views and the Race Against Time

Note: This is the first of a two-part series. This piece takes into account Afghan public attitudes in determining what the real issue is there. Tomorrow's piece will look at what we can and should do based on this information.

Without a doubt, we're currently on a trajectory to lose the war in Afghanistan. I think even my cat knows that. But to figure out how to reverse course, we first have to agree on why we're losing so much ground so quickly. And, while the reasons seem very clear to me, many of my left-of-center friends and colleagues have different ideas. This means that if President Obama boosts the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by up to 30,000--and there's no consensus on why everything is even falling apart--then we could be looking at serious disillusionment with the administration among a large number of progressives. I think that's something that can be avoided.

Unfortunately, one common misconception is that the U.S. is losing in Afghanistan because Americans are viewed as "occupiers" and because the Taliban are seen as a suitable alternative. Those who see it this way, typically feel that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, or, at the very least, maintain our current force levels. Take the recent editorial in The Nation for instance. The editors there say:

But more US forces will not bring stability. We are losing the war not because we have had too few troops but because our presence has turned the Afghan people against us, swelling the ranks of the Taliban.

Any good will the US military once enjoyed has long since been destroyed by airstrikes that have killed civilians.

While this editorial makes some good points overall, the underlying premise is incorrect: In reality, there is no evidence that "the Afghan people" in general have begun "swelling the ranks of the Taliban" to fight Americans. While air strikes and the generally botched mission in Afghanistan have demoralized much of the Afghan population, most would rather see us succeed there than to see us simply pick up and leave. It seems that most Afghans understand the nuances of the situation better than the average American.

The fact is, people are joining the Taliban in certain areas because we can't protect them--not because they dislike us or because they have an affection for the Taliban. It's often a life or death issue in these areas--specifically in the southeast. The people side with whoever they need to in order to keep their heads attached securely to their bodies. Most Afghans despise the Taliban, but they won't oppose them because they're not getting the help they need from us. And that sort of outside help is what they seek most desperately.

A new BBC/ABC opinion poll consisting of 1,500 randomly selected Afghans from all 34 provinces leaves no doubt about this dynamic. This is what the survey found:

Afghans were asked if the U.S. decision to send troops to their country to bring down the Taliban was a good decision or a bad one. In answer, 69 percent said it was the right decision, while only 24 percent disagreed. Of course, that sort of question doesn't account for either the current situation or for the performance of U.S. troops in the intervening years. It simply sets the foundation that I personally witnessed when I was there: That the overwhelming majority of Afghans loathed the Taliban government and foreign al Qaeda fighters in 2001, and that they wanted U.S. forces in their country.

From that baseline, we can dig into the other responses about how Afghans feel about the situation today. So first off, let's compare how they view the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and the United States. Afghans were asked if they viewed each favorably or unfavorably (to varying degrees), and this is how they answered (in percentages):

The Taliban

Favorable 7

Unfavorable 91

Osama bin Laden

Favorable 6

Unfavorable 92

The United States

Favorable 47

Unfavorable 52

What this shows is that there's plenty of disenchantment to go around Afghanistan's 34 provinces. While Afghans are, for the first time, viewing the U.S. unfavorably, there's no question that Americans are preferred over the Taliban and al Qaeda--both of which are nearly universally despised. But there's a lot more to this question than that simple fact. If we look at how Afghan answers to this question have changed since 2005, something becomes clear: While Taliban popularity has hovered between 7 and 13 percent and bin Laden's popularity has ranged from 5 to 9 percent, Afghans' view of U.S. forces has dropped yearly from 83 percent in 2005 to 74 to 65 to 47 percent today.

This shows that Afghans have not only hated the Taliban and al Qaeda consistently for years, but that they once held out hope that we could help them with that problem. And now, they're clearly losing faith in the West--yet again.

But, in getting back to The Nation's assertion about the "swelling" ranks of the Taliban, still other questions in the poll addressed this. When asked, only 4 percent of Afghans would rather have the Taliban ruling the country today, while 82 percent prefer the current government. Similarly, 58 percent of Afghans believe the Taliban poses "the biggest danger" in the country (versus 8 percent who believe the U.S. does). In a related question, Afghans blame the Taliban and al Qaeda for most of the nation's violence (49 percent) far more than they blame U.S. forces (12 percent). Of course, as with the other figures, these percentages have been headed in the wrong direction over the past year.

So I think I've beat this dead horse long enough. Most Afghans want to like us. They want us to succeed in helping to bring non-extremist stability to their country. But they're only a few air strikes away from saying "Fuck it, we'll take our chances with the fundies. Get out."

The question facing America now--and this goes to the very heart of counterinsurgency theory--is how can we get the regular people back on our side? And while my non-interventionist friends might scoff at this, the fact is, if we don't, the Taliban are in position to retake control of the country, potentially thrusting it back into a pre-9/11 state of near-anarchic civil war and terror exportation. And that's not acceptable.

So, given this information, what can we do? What should we do? I'll dive into that tomorrow.

Also available at VetVoice

Comments

[mmmd]

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of a foriegn power moving in and removing a government, even an unpopular one. It sounds good on paper and probably will look even better on the silver screen, but there remains one problem: who will police the World Policeman? How to keep politicians and corporation from taking advantage of it, removing any regime they dislike, and putting in a puppet Government answerable only to them?
If a Government is undemocratic, corrupt or repressive, it's the right of the people to determine if they should be removed. I know it's difficult, probably bloody, but at least they will have earned it. Whereas, shoving our idea of democracy down their throats simply means they do not earn it, they do not value it and probably do not want it. As soon as the Foreign Power leaves, things go back to it's old form. Education and Aid is probably a better way to win hearts and minds then bombs and missiles.

[freshjaan]

When we were NOT in Iraq the war in Afghanistan was going fine. Thanks alot BUSH!

[Ergon]

'Going fine'. Right. Foreign fighters allowed to escape from Tora Bora, an air war that worked only until it became a war against guerillas. Those who don't learn the lessons of Vietnam..are condemned to repeat it.

[rmajh5]

I believe it is time for President Obama to bring home the troops from Afghanistan and focus our efforts on protecting our nation. This would include interaction between the rest of the world and ourselves, but it would cease our attempts to make, by force, other nations into replicas of ourselves. To put it as bluntly as I can, if Afghanistan's mighty neighbor to it's north, the former Soviet Union, could not in the space of ten years overcome Afghanistan, why in the world would we be so arrogant as to believe that we could do it from our position thousands of miles away.

So ... let's focus most of our resources on ourselves. On the murder and violence which continues to plague our 50 States. On the deteriorating roads and bridges found throughout our nation. On the deficit health care system that fails to be available to almost 50 million Americans at a time when our co-democracies cover all of their citizens. On the deteriorating economy which sees our brothers and sisters losing jobs in high numbers month by month with no end in sight. On the increasing numbers of children becoming victims of child abuse and neglect throughout our nation.

Even if we could save the rest of the world for democracy with our strong military forces, if we continue on the road we are now on, we will wind up having saved the world and lost our own part of it.

[freshjaan]

Protecting our nation includes keeping the crazies out of Afghanistan. Are you forgetting where the terrorists plotted 9-11???

[Ergon]

Germany?Sa­udi?Pakist­an?

[Ergon]

Florida?

[Robertx5]

Afghans are like any other people, most want a stable system so they can get on with their everyday lives without interference. As the writer points out the Taliban has never been very popular, but had taken over most of the country because they first of all promised, and then actually did provide security. Even though many of their rules were unpleasant and restrictive, if you obeyed them you could, for the first time in many years go about your everyday life in safety, and for a large proportion of the population that was a more attractive option than the chaos that had been the norm since the soviets had left.
After the U.S. led takeover, the Taliban all but disappeared from the scene, as many of their tribal allies realised that a better option now appeared available. I believe that it is the myriad failures of both the Karzai government and its western backers that have allowed the current Taliban resurgence, rather than a deep rooted desire to evict an occupier.

[freshjaan]

Thank you.

[Ergon]

As a student of geo-political history I'd say it's all about control of the last major untapped oil and gas reserves in the Caucastans. The end game is to control Pakistan, with its access to the sea, and all the major powers, Russia, China, and America, are players. India, which likes to see itself as a major power, is trying to break up Pakistan. Hopefully, President Obama will ignore the war hawks and become the greatest peace president, ever.

[S1m0n]

People in a country under occupation rarely tell occupying soldiers how they actually feel about the experience of being under occupation.

[Republicrats]

Abandoning the prohibitionist model of dealing with the drug problem is the only effective way to stem the violence in Mexico, Afgahnistan, and its spillover into the United States. Other proposed solutions, including preventing the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico, establishing tighter control over the border, and (somehow) winning the war on drugs are futile.

[ClarkJensen]

Is the United States going to play the part of "international police"? The economy says "no".

[driselda]

Thank you very much for this essential vital piece. I am in Afghanistan and there is such a lot that you see and how bad it is going. I look forward to your next post. Thank you.

[cdnnewsjunky]

"not because they dislike us ..."

Really?

[freshjaan]

Believe it or not the Afghans don't hate Americans. I'm fully qualified to say this because 1. I'm Afghan and 2. I've been to Afghanistan. I spoke to many people and they like Americans. At first I was hesitant to tell them I came from America, but when I did, I only experienced the deepest hospitality. The Afghans that don't like Americans are usually in the South and are the fundamentalist ones :)

[steamboat]

Isn't 30,000 more troops suppose to solve that problem?

[go]

Let's see 91% of the population is against the Taliban and you are afraid of the Taliban taking over the pile of dust the Afghanistan has been reduced to. Get the troops out and if the Taliban wants to be king of the hill of rocks set out a welcome mat. Once the Taliban organizes, if they want to stir up some sh*t they will be much easier to deal with but I personally can't see how the Afghanis won't deal with the Taliban in an appropriate manner before they could "takeover".

[research]

legalize poppies and you might have a chance, otherwise forget it.

[melpol]

A hundred thousand violent felons locked up for most of their lives in U.S. prisons would gladly go to Afghanistan to kick butt in exchange for freedom.They will not require military uniforms. Just give them rifles and enough ammo. The terrorists that got word of their coming would go back to their peaceful farming of poppies. They would be fools to face such a violent fighting force.

[zitlight73]

We'll never win that war, we killed too many civilians to ever win their hearts and minds. It would be alot smarter to concentrate on the troubles just south of our border that are now spilling over to the United States. Mexico is about to collapse. Corrupt police are teaming up with the narco-terrorists and killing Mexican soldiers. We've seen an outbreak of kidnappings in Pheonix and that will spread to other American cities because it's lucrative. The instability in Mexico threatens this nation's security, economically and physically. WEe can no longer police the whole world but we damned sure better start policing our own backyard and neighborhood.

[EMcDonald]

Well said

[freshjaan]

no no, you're wrong. they'd rather have civilian casualties than to have the taliban. I'm afghan I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!