Then, a disaster we will have, because the western powers are not going to stay there
forever.
Afghanistan deja-vu: Lessons from the Soviet experience
- Thread starter seth gecko
- Start date
forever.
Regarding withdrawal, he is referring to hundreds of UN employees, not the tens of thousands of troops.
Of course the reason for the mission was because of 9/11.
Is this a new revelation for you?
I would not make that assumption.
It is one thing to wish security, stability, and human rights were possible without the presence of foreign troops but that doesn't mean they would prefer the alternative that would exist if there is a sudden mass withdrawal.
I don't know if there are any polls later than this one. Support has likely dropped
since the beginning of the year.
Poll of Afghans Shows Drop In Support for U.S. Mission
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A new poll in Afghanistan shows sagging support for U.S. efforts in that country, with airstrikes a chief concern. A quarter of the Afghans polled said that attacks on American or allied forces are justifiable, double the proportion saying so in late 2006.
The poll, the fourth conducted in Afghanistan since 2005 by ABC News and its media partners, also shows plummeting support for President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government, and a sharp decline in the proportion of people who think the nation is heading in the right direction. The vast majority of Afghans consider public corruption to be a problem, and there are widespread complaints about unemployment, high prices and spotty electrical service.
But security concerns galvanize public opinion most directly.
The proportion of Afghans rating their security positively dipped to 55 percent, from 72 percent in 2005. Seventy percent of those who said the nation is on the wrong track cited security as a central concern.
At the same time, ratings of U.S. forces have declined precipitously; 32 percent said U.S. and coalition forces are performing well, down from 68 percent in 2005. And fewer than half of the respondents, 42 percent, have confidence in coalition forces to provide security in their areas.
Most troubling to the Afghans are U.S. airstrikes and civilian casualties. One in five said coalition forces have killed civilians in their area in the past year, and one in six reported nearby bombing or shelling at the hands of U.S. forces.
About eight in 10 called coalition airstrikes unacceptable, viewing the risk to innocent civilians as greater than the value of these raids in fighting the Taliban and other anti-government insurgents. More blame U.S. and coalition forces for poor targeting than blame the Taliban for keeping assets among civilians (41 percent to 28 percent); 27 percent said both sides shared the blame.
One in four Afghans said attacks on U.S. or other forces can be justified, up significantly from the past couple of years but on par with the level of October 2005.
More also blame the country's current travails on the United States, NATO or the Afghan government than on the Taliban (36 percent to 27 percent), but the Taliban is viewed as a greater long-term threat.
Fewer people say that U.S. or NATO forces have a strong presence in their areas -- 34 percent, compared with 57 percent in 2006. The survey finds these views deeply intertwined with approval ratings for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, suggesting an opportunity to sway public opinion if the proposed increase in U.S. troops boosts the impression of a more effective presence.
And despite the negative turn in public views, most Afghans continue to say the U.S.-led invasion and the ouster of the Taliban were good things for their country, and most want U.S. troops to stay.
As the Obama administration turns its focus to the conflict in Afghanistan, Afghans are ambivalent on what the new leadership will bring. In the poll of 1,534 randomly selected Afghans, conducted in late December through mid-January, about as many said Barack Obama's election will make things worse as said it will improve life there.
Most expect little to change or have yet to form an opinion. Few are hoping for the promised increase in troop levels, however -- 44 percent said they want a decrease in the number of foreign forces in the country, while 18 percent want an increase.
The poll, conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul for ABC News, the BBC and ARD German television, found that 47 percent hold a favorable view of the United States, down from 83 percent in 2005, with the steepest drop occurring in the past year.
since the beginning of the year.
Poll of Afghans Shows Drop In Support for U.S. Mission
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A new poll in Afghanistan shows sagging support for U.S. efforts in that country, with airstrikes a chief concern. A quarter of the Afghans polled said that attacks on American or allied forces are justifiable, double the proportion saying so in late 2006.
The poll, the fourth conducted in Afghanistan since 2005 by ABC News and its media partners, also shows plummeting support for President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government, and a sharp decline in the proportion of people who think the nation is heading in the right direction. The vast majority of Afghans consider public corruption to be a problem, and there are widespread complaints about unemployment, high prices and spotty electrical service.
But security concerns galvanize public opinion most directly.
The proportion of Afghans rating their security positively dipped to 55 percent, from 72 percent in 2005. Seventy percent of those who said the nation is on the wrong track cited security as a central concern.
At the same time, ratings of U.S. forces have declined precipitously; 32 percent said U.S. and coalition forces are performing well, down from 68 percent in 2005. And fewer than half of the respondents, 42 percent, have confidence in coalition forces to provide security in their areas.
Most troubling to the Afghans are U.S. airstrikes and civilian casualties. One in five said coalition forces have killed civilians in their area in the past year, and one in six reported nearby bombing or shelling at the hands of U.S. forces.
About eight in 10 called coalition airstrikes unacceptable, viewing the risk to innocent civilians as greater than the value of these raids in fighting the Taliban and other anti-government insurgents. More blame U.S. and coalition forces for poor targeting than blame the Taliban for keeping assets among civilians (41 percent to 28 percent); 27 percent said both sides shared the blame.
One in four Afghans said attacks on U.S. or other forces can be justified, up significantly from the past couple of years but on par with the level of October 2005.
More also blame the country's current travails on the United States, NATO or the Afghan government than on the Taliban (36 percent to 27 percent), but the Taliban is viewed as a greater long-term threat.
Fewer people say that U.S. or NATO forces have a strong presence in their areas -- 34 percent, compared with 57 percent in 2006. The survey finds these views deeply intertwined with approval ratings for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, suggesting an opportunity to sway public opinion if the proposed increase in U.S. troops boosts the impression of a more effective presence.
And despite the negative turn in public views, most Afghans continue to say the U.S.-led invasion and the ouster of the Taliban were good things for their country, and most want U.S. troops to stay.
As the Obama administration turns its focus to the conflict in Afghanistan, Afghans are ambivalent on what the new leadership will bring. In the poll of 1,534 randomly selected Afghans, conducted in late December through mid-January, about as many said Barack Obama's election will make things worse as said it will improve life there.
Most expect little to change or have yet to form an opinion. Few are hoping for the promised increase in troop levels, however -- 44 percent said they want a decrease in the number of foreign forces in the country, while 18 percent want an increase.
The poll, conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul for ABC News, the BBC and ARD German television, found that 47 percent hold a favorable view of the United States, down from 83 percent in 2005, with the steepest drop occurring in the past year.
Of course there are going to be many problems and criticisms, many justified, but I think deep down a lot of people realize how much worse things could be, especially for the females.
You are right of course, but I also think that deep down most afghans resent
the foreign troops.
Neither you nor I have been there lately, so we are of course both speculating.
Apparently it does, according to the poll you just posted.
And despite the negative turn in public views, most Afghans continue to say the U.S.-led invasion and the ouster of the Taliban were good things for their country, and most want U.S. troops to stay.
Women make up roughly half the population and I can't imagine why any of them would want a return to the Stone Age.
I'm sure a lot of parents are happy that their daughters can go to school.
I noticed that, but I am wondering why there are no numbers supporting
that claim.
Nor should we, but we certainly need not only to make the security situation safer for villagers, but we must allow enough time for the Afghan National Army to come up to a sufficient strength and a sufficient level of training that they are capable of handling the situation on their own.
I fear danmand is correct. We keep forgetting the old Irish proverb: "No good deed goes unpunished." Instead of building roads, bridges and schools in Afghanistan we should use that money to build more hockey rinks in Scarborough for female hockey players.
With respect, Aardy, I believe that was precisely Mao's point. It's all the same to an insurgency which has time on it side.
Err, to whom?
I don't exactly see a groundswell of pro Westernism from the Mr Average Afghan. What I see is a bunch of dirt poor peasants who are caught between the Talis and the Western soldiers, who don't understand the latter 1 iota and who are shit scared that someone or other is going to kill their goats.
Islamofascism (?) may concern the shit out of the 1% of liberal Afghans in the major centres. I doubt the peasants have any idea whatsoever what is at stake and care even less. To them the Talis are familiar and represent a comfortable orthodoxy. And the Talis are likely to win the war. Two good reasons for not pissing the Talis off.
Yes, but those dirt poor peasants have hopes and dreams like the rest of us. They weren't very happy with the Taliban the last time round. However, they have to be sure than they aren't going to left to hang out to dry.
Again I don't believe we can afford to let them to. We all saw what happened the last time.
Hell no, its a quote from Hans Christian Anderson don't you recognize it?
Don't they teach anything in Denmark about use of brackets [ ] when you just can't restrain yourself from changing the substance of other people's posts without permission?
In Denmark, we use brackets when we are adding or correcting words for clarity in citations For example, when the original text says
"its a quote from Anderson don't you recognize it?"
I might add words in brackets:
"its a quote from [Hans Christian Andersen] don't you recognize it?"
I chose to bulletize the changed words. I apologize if that offended you.
Why not Field Marshal Sir Gerald Temper, KG, the Tiger of Malaya? Those who feel no counter-insurgency campaign can ever be won always want to bring up Vietnam but never Malaya.
Been analyzed to death. The standard explanation for Malaya is that the revolutionaries were largely ethnic Chinese who were culturally and linguistically distinct from the majority Malays and that their credo never spread.
Thus, they were quickly isolated by energetic military counter-measures and squashed.
Of course, there is an alternative argument which leans heavily on assumptions of British national superiority and immense military prowess. I know a few lads "over 'ome" who prefer that argument.
