Afghan Foreign Minister Insists that Afghan Public Still Supports International Military Presence
For years, the most reassuring thing about the war in Afghanistan, to my mind, was that the Afghan public seemed strongly supportive of the American presence there. That was a pointed contrast to the situation in Iraq, where for years we’ve been unwelcome interlopers. Recently, though, that seems to not be the case. My colleague Ben Armbruster and I got a chance to talk with Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, earlier today and Ben asked him about this. His reply was basically to say that Afghans in fact still do support the international military presence:
As Ben notes, this really does seem at odds with the survey data:
A recent ABC/BBC/ARD poll released earlier this month found that Afghans’ support of U.S. and NATO forces’ efforts in that nation is tumbling. Just 47 percent said they had a favorable view of the United States, down from 83 percent in 2005. Only 37 percent said that most people in their area support NATO and the International Security Assistance Force; 67 percent supported ISAF in 2006.
I think you could say that we’re within the margin of error here. The statistical margin of error, at least. But what’s clear is that our operational margin of error is extraordinarily narrow. That’s why there’s an urgent need to both reduce the number of civilian casualties we’re inflicting and reduce the number of civilian casualties that anti-government forces are able to inflict. My read on the situation is that the best way to achieve that in the short run is through an increase in the number of boots on the ground—both American and, hopefully, foreign. But more troops doesn’t achieve that result automatically, you need better strategy. And if we don’t start doing better very quickly, we risk slipping past the point where it’s possible for our presence to be effective at all.
14 Responses to “Afghan Foreign Minister Insists that Afghan Public Still Supports International Military Presence”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Why are we there at all?
February 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You know, if you’re trying to determine whether Afghans support a continued foreign military presence, it might help to look at the poll question that asks them whether they support the foreign military presence. It’s number 18 here:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf
The percentages are 63% support for the presence of US forces, 59% for NATO/ISAF.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
My read on the situation is that the best way to achieve that in the short run is through an increase in the number of boots on the ground
More boots on the ground sure decreased the civilian casualties in Iraq, didn’t it? Oh, wait.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
And if we don’t start doing better very quickly, we risk slipping past the point where it’s possible for our presence to be effective at all.
Effective at doing what? Matt, I ask this every single time you post something on Afghanistan, and you’ve yet to offer any response: what is the United States trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? What’s the objective here? Is it a stable democracy in Afghanistan? Is it just a stable pro-Western puppet government? Is it to “eliminate the Taliban,” whatever that means? And how do you do that, given that the Taliban are basically supported by the largest ethnic group in the country? Is the US supposed to kill every Taliban in the region? Kill every Pashtun in the region? What does any of this have to do with destroying poppies? Why is the US there at all? And what does any of this have to do with terrorism?
February 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Matt,
You deserve credit for finally using your status to talk to prominent expert; congratulations. Now maybe you’ll give a call to that former FDIC executive you were having that imaginary dialogue with about nationalization.
Also, an elaboration of what you think our objective should be in Afghanistan — and whether you think President Obama has allocated enough resources to make that possible — would be helpful.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
You could also give Rory Stewart a call at your alma mater, Matt.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
To follow up – how do we reconcile the 63% support for US troops in the poll with the apparently contradictory 37% number that Armbruster provides (from the same poll)?
Part of the problem is that the 37% question calls for respondents to assess their communities’ attitudes, rather than to express their own opinion. More importantly, the 37% refers to those who said that there was “strong support” in their area for US forces, and excludes the additional 32% who said that there was “weak support.” Weak support can possibly still be considered support, and there are obvious reasons why someone might be ambivalent about a foreign occupying force, yet still favor their presence on balance.
This is further demonstrated by the fact that only 21% of Afghan respondents want the US and NATO to leave now, and only an additional 16% want them to leave within a year.
In other words, despite the clear recent negative trends in Afghan opinion, Spanta’s claim that the majority of Afghans support a continued international military presence is supported by the data, not contradicted by it. It’s always better to read the actual poll than to rely on media descriptions of its results.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Another brain dead post by Matt on a subject he knows ZIP about.
First, it’s completely irrelevant want the Afghan polls say, whether positive or negative. That doesn’t change the strategic and tactical facts on the ground.
Second, there is no way “more boots on the ground” – when those boots are a mere 17,000 – is going to change the strategic and tactical situation on the ground in Afghanistan – and more importantly, the availability of a Taliban safe haven in Pakistan.
All the experts have said that to contain the insurgency in Afghanistan would require in the neighborhood of 400,000 US troops. While one might expect that, say, half that might have some better effect than a quarter of that, 17,000 or even thirty thousand – the original number asked for – isn’t even in the same ball park.
The total number of troops even with 30,000 would be less than 100,000 – and remember, most of those are support troops, not combat troops. That’s one fourth the number really needed to do the job.
Worse, even if you HAD 400,000 troops in Afghanistan, the net effect would be negative because the Afghans would REALLY start to dislike the occupation. The ONLY reason there is ANY support for the US presence at this time is BECAUSE there are so few US troops in country vis-a-vis the size and distribution of the population.
Also, consider how many of the population are in the northern part where the Northern Alliance holds sway. The situation in the south, among the Pashtun and where most of the hard combat has been, is considerably more critical of the US presence. And that is precisely where more troops would be needed.
Matt just doesn’t think any of this through, he just babbles. When it comes to military and foreign policy, Yglesias is a joke.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Why don’t we just go home?
February 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Forty seven percent of them still like us? That’s pretty damn good. You’d be hard pressed to find a country that likes us that much. India is the only other country that likes us that much. We obviously haven’t worked hard enough to get the Afghans to hate us. But a few more years of war should do the trick. We’ll be down to French levels in a jiffy.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
“India is the only other country that likes us that much.”
No it isn’t. America is pretty well-liked in Eastern Europe, Africa, Australia, and other places.
It is true though that India likes us. They also “love” George W. Bush, according to India’s PM.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
India loves Bush because he gave them cover for a nuclear weapons program, albeit one that already existed.
The US is liked in Australia. Wow, Fred, a “duh” moment.
And that’s only because they have no oil and we haven’t bombed them lately.
And we hire their actors (which actually is irritating to them because their own movie industry has problems competing).
February 26th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
You know, I’m glad that the Afghanistan escalation that Obama telegraphed in the campaign is being viewed skeptically, because its forcing us to look at what we’re trying to achieve there.
But the frequent use of ill-fated British and Soviet experience in the region to automatically settle the argument in favor of quitting (or in the near term, in favor of limiting aims and efforts)is a bit of a dodge. I’ll call it “the analogy dodge”, because it does not engage the most recent history, which the most relevant. Something changed between 2005 and 2008, and changed for the worse. It happened for specific reasons, and maybe even due to some specific policies of the second Bush administration, the NATO allies and Afghan government. Some of those policies and their effects could be reversible, some might not be. But its a dodge to offer recommendations without looking into them in detail. While its easy to draw your conclusions based on broad analogies with Soviet and British experiences to make an essentialist argument that nothing outsiders do in Afghanistan works, maybe, in a reversal of what Matt Y. was recommending in Iraq, the competence of recent and future efforts is what should be looked at.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I read your blog for a long time and must tell that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.