Take a look at this new ABC/BBC/ARD poll of Afghan public opinion. (Via the Washington Post.) The topline is that public support for the U.S. presence is dropping. Asked if there’s "support in your area" for troops from the U.S./NATO/International Security Assistance Force (ISAF — the official name for the NATO mission in Afghanistan), 67 percent said yes in 2006 but only 37 percent do so today. But the poll doesn’t indicate that the Afghans view the U.S. as an illegitimate force, which would be the game-ender.
Basically, the poll has no shortage of evidence that Afghans are dissatisfied with the way things are. Only 42 percent say the U.S. and its allies are effective in providing security — 67 percent said so in 2006 — and that’s pretty understandable: violence in Afghanistan has crested over the past 18 months. Most say that the Taliban has gotten stronger, especially in strongholds like Kandahar province (49 percent) and Herat province (63 percent). Lopsided majorities call corruption a problem. There’s been a 20-point drop in the percentage of people who are satisfied with their living conditions since 2005. In short, while some bigoted columnists entertain cliches about the inscrutability of the Afghans, they appear to be a reality-based community.
What’s surprising about the poll is that the Afghans don’t appear to take the jump from "everything sucks and I don’t trust the U.S. to keep me safe" to "the U.S. is an illegitimate occupying force that I will not support." Nearly 60 percent say the Taliban is the biggest threat to Afghanistan, but only 8 percent say U.S. forces are. Feelings about attacks on U.S. troops are transactional, dependent on where there haven’t been airstrikes that kill civilians: it’s 44 percent in areas where the U.S. has recently launched airstrikes, and 18 percent where it hasn’t.
None of this is to say the poll is good news. It’s not. Clearly the Afghan people — the center of gravity of the war — believe that the U.S. isn’t meeting their needs. But the poll isn’t apocalyptic news, either. I don’t want to be glib and say the absence of apocalypse is as good as news gets from Afghanistan these days. But the poll indicates that there’s still a window of opportunity: stop the airstrikes, provide for the population (is this too far into Central-Asian-Valhalla territory?) and exploit the greater negative sentiment against the Taliban. Will it work? That’s not answerable, but the poll doesn’t indicate that the Afghans would say the effort comes too late.
Crossposted to The Streak.



4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
By “stop the airstrikes” should I understand you to mean stop killing innocent people?
I think I actually mean airstrikes themselves. (As you can see I am thinking aloud.) I wonder if at this point the value of any particular airstrike is dwarfed by the detriment to public opinion. Gates said something surprising at his recent testimony to the Senate: when the U.S. gets accused of killing civilians, it should apologize first and investigate second. In other words, the Afghan people are the ballgame.
The airstrikes are a substitute for a ground presence. When I talked to McKiernan in October, he said that bluntly. He can only scale them back if he gets his troop increase. Seems worth it. What was that John Paul Vann quote about a knife being an optimal COIN weapon…
I see from fdl’s front page that the guy over at ips is at it again with the Odierno/Petraeus/Kean conspiracy. Any thoughts?
There’s a place for Tac Air in Aghanistan, but if you try to use it outside of a narrow effective methodology it is horrendously counterproductive.
The lesson comes out of Vietnam, primarily because the Taliban do sometimes mass to take a particular objective. We bombed the shit out of the HCM Trail, with very little in the way of actual results. But when we put troops on the ground to seek contact and engage NVA units up close, then while they were fixed by the infantry the air could work out on them pretty effectively. Real FACs with eyeballs on real targets, not fast movers chucking major ordnance from 18,000 feet at “suspected fighters”.
In a fight like Afghanistan, you have to lead with grunts, not with airdales…
mikey