Poll: 7 in 10 Afghans support U.S. forces

[Kolesar]

Source: Salon.com News

Nearly seven in 10 Afghans support the presence of U.S. forces in their country, and 61 percent favor the military buildup of 37,000 U.S. and NATO reinforcements now deploying, according to a poll released Monday.

Support for U.S. and NATO forces, however, drops sharply in the south and east where the fighting is the most intense, the poll said.

Nationwide, 10 percent of Afghans support the Taliban, but the insurgents are backed by a higher percent of the population -- 27 percent -- in the country's southwest, the poll said.

The poll of a national random sample of 1,534 Afghan adults was conducted from Dec. 11 to Dec. 23 by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV, their fifth since 2005. The poll has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Field work was done by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul, a subsidiary of D3 Systems Inc. in Vienna, Va.

After steep declines in recent years, nearly seven in 10 Afghans also think their nation is headed in the right direction. That's up 30 percent since January 2009. The number of Afghans who expect their lives will be better a year from now also has jumped 20 percentage points from a year ago -- to a new high of 71 percent, the poll said.
...snip...

Read more: http://salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/news/2010/01/11/as_afghan_poll

[Soylent Brice]

1. the other 3 were probably murdered from a preadtor drone attack. n/t

[PSPS]

2. Don't these D3 polls always show the middle east loving US occupation?

[Turborama]

93. No

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4219906&mesg_id=4222747

[No Elephants]

3. I see no reason to doubt the results of this poll. I myself have longed to

see occupation forces in Boston once again.

[treestar]

11. This is where a cultural difference might come in though

People in Afghanistan will have a way different world view than we do.

[ShortnFiery]

53. Yes, they love to share the time tested adage, "Afghanistan, where empires go to DIE."

:eyes:

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/troop_trailer.php

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

68. Do you have a specific reason to doubt this poll or is it exclusively because it flies in the face

of your own views of the war?

[No Elephants]

99. Do you ask that exclusively bc the poll supports the war justifications you keep trying to pimp?

How come I see your screen name only when you are posting to justify everything the U.S. has done in these wars, including killing civilians?

Tends to make me doubt your bona fides, so I don't feel inclined to bother with a substantive reply.

BTW, the question is rhetorical. I don't need an answer. Changing a screen name or diversifying your posts is very easy to do anyway.


A sincere and thoughtful person could probably figure out why an overwhelming majority of people in a country that's been bombed and occupied for almost a decade might not be thrilled with the occupiers. So, I'll leave you to ponder.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

116. I ask that because I want to know if you have a legitimate basis for your dismissal

of this poll's findings. In other words, I'm giving you a chance to make a case instead of simply dismissing you as a hack who boos and hisses whenever anything that remotely supports the U.S.' presence in Afghanistan pops up.

Secondly, what "wars" are you referring to? I spent years actively organizing against the U.S.' occupation in Iraq, so surely you're not referring to that? I do support the U.S.' presence in Afghanistan, however, and I'm willing to discuss it with you at any time.

Third, at the end of your latest post you again dismiss the poll without stating a legitimate reason why you're doing so. What error did you find in the way this poll was conducted? How would you improve upon their method? I'm asking you for the very basics of a criticism here and the fact that you can't provide that sends up all sorts of red flags about your own credibility on this subject.

[ieoeja]

79. Or to share the time tested adage, "beware the Jabberwock, my son".

As long as we're quoting poems....

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

100. They don't have a worldview than loves occupiers. Or people who bomb them.

Or folks who prop up a corrupt puppet government.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

117. Were you aware...

that the insurgents are the leading cause of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?

[olegramps]

4. I am sure that this poll will be discounted by the new crop of Obama bashers.

For all of those who want us to immediately abandon Afghanistan as a hopeless cause please inform me as to what would happen if this were our policy? Isn't it the fact that if the Bush administration had pursued al Qaeda and destroyed them when they were in their grasp that we wouldn't been in the dire predicament that we find ourselves. As a veteran I regret every casualty, but I still place the blame squarely on Bush and Cheney for this fiasco. If the Taliban is allowed to regain control of the country the possibility of the resurgence of al Qaeda is almost assured. It is a damn mess, but one that is totally attributable of the PNAC neo-cons who hijacked our government and drove it into bankruptcy in pursuit of their nitwit policies to dominate the Middle East. I will stick with Obama; the alternative is totally unacceptable.

[Bragi]

5. No, I think you're wrong

if the Taliban regain control, the last thing they will do is to provide safe haven for al Qaeda. The Taliban aren't global jihadists, they are focused on making their own country into a medieval hell hole.

As for what happens once America leaves, what happens is that a puppet government will be set up to guard the new oil pipeline, and the same war lords, drug barons and religious medievalists who have been running the place for the past 200 years will resume running the place.

The operative question therefore is: How many American troops, spies, diplomats and mercenaries are Americans prepared to see dead to build and hold this new oil pipeline?

[Kolesar]

8. "the last thing *the Taliban* will do is to provide safe haven for al Qaeda"

No, that will be the first thing they will do.
Remember the 1990s?

[Bragi]

25. Unlike us, they tend to learn from their mistakes /nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

69. How in God's name do you figure??

[Bragi]

75. Here's why...

The Taliban represent the medievil religious fanatics that have dominated the Pashtan tribal group and areas for about the last 200 years. This crowd has always been dedicated to keeping their own country in the 12th century, and never had any ambitions to engage in jihad abroad.

They did give refuge to Osama in the 1990s (who does have foreign jihadist ambitions, of course) but even in 2001 they were willing to hand him over to Bush to avoid war (Bush rejected the offer because he wanted war.) So the Taliban paid a very heavy price for letting OBL operate from their country.

Looking to the future, eventually there will be negotiated settlement. This settlement will give the south back to the religious medievilists (sorry school girls!) who will agree, in exchange for being allowed back in power, to keep AQ out. This won't be a big problem from them since AQ doesn't need Afghanistan at all at this point. It has moved its operations to elsewhere (Pakistan, the Gulf, Africa, etc.)

The idea that the US has to continue its occupation of Afghanistan to keep AQ from returning to that country is just nonsense. Like the poll under discussion here, the effectiveness of this argument depends on people knowing almost nothing about the country under discussion.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

94. A few things you seem to be neglecting...

The first being that Afghanistan, as a whole, has only been "dominated" by extremists like the Taliban its in very recent history. Really, this didn't occur until the well after the withdrawal of Soviet forces. You seem to be attempting to paint this as a situation where the Taliban are somehow the rightful heirs to 200 years of history when, in reality, parts of Afghanistan were considered sort've a Mecca for artistic and open minded people right up through the 1970s.

Secondly, it's extremely unlikely that the Taliban were being forthright when the offered to hand over bin Laden. They had made similar offers in the past and reneged at the last minute (see their "offer" to hand him over to Saudi Arabia). Also, keep in mind that Omar and bin Laden are related nowadays, thus increasing the likelihood they were BSing. Oh, and just to clear this up, their initial offer wasn't to hand him over. It was that they would try him themselves, under Islamic law. Surely you can see why such an offer was unacceptable?

Third, while I agree that a negotiated settlement will occur, it will occur in piecemeal fashion with the leaders we're able to establish working relationships with. There's still a lot of fighting ahead for Southern Afghanistan, an awful lot. Also, I would disagree as to whether or not al-Qaeda needs Afghanistan. As I see it, they've done a poor job establishing a foothold anywhere else. They've lost the battle in Iraq, they're on the defensive in Pakistan, they've yet to gain serious footing in Somalia (despite its lawlessness), etc. Af-Pak is essential. If they can't hold that, their leadership stands little chance of reestablishing itself in its current form.

[DCBob]

97. Sorry, but their "love" for OBL up until and after 9/11 sealed their fate..

No last minute "mea culpa" will change that.

[No Elephants]

103. He must have been very lovable. Reagan and Poppy Bush seem to have been enamored as well.

[No Elephants]

101. To be fair to the Taliban, Al Qaida in Afghanis. had plenty of help from the U.S.

Besides, word is, we're at least considering "partnering" with the Taliban these days. Translated, I believe that term means we will pay them not to kill our troops, as we paid the Iraqi chieftains.

Recall those stories not very long ago about how important it was to distinguish in Afghanistan between the Taliban and Al Qaida? The Taliban were no our enemy because their issues were solely domestic and they had no interest in attacking us. And so on? And this was supposedly originating with generals.

[olegramps]

13. Just who do you think provided al Qaeda a safe haven in which to attack us?

[Dr.Phool]

16. The Germans?

Saudis?
Yemen?
Somalia?
San Diego?

[Kolesar]

19. Osama was not in Germany or San Diego..eom

[Dr.Phool]

22. Mohammed Atta and his minions were.

That's where they refined their plots.

[No Elephants]

104. No, our actual attackers were. And aren't you the selective dickens!

Osama's been in a lot more countries than Afghanistan, which hardly had the ability to do anything about routing out Al Qaida, even it wanted to. Lord knows, the rest of the world, including us, hasn't succeeded. And we helped make Bin Laden a hero in Afghanistan.

So, would it be just if we bombed every country that sheltered Obama and/or funded him, like Saudi Arabia and, well, us, too.

BTW, Bin Laden once said our killing of civilians in Lebanon under Poppy Bush started his determination to strike us. So, it would seem justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[No Elephants]

102. "Safe haven from which to attack us" is right out of the Republican

propaganda playbook, used to justify bombing civilians by night and dropping peanut butter on them by day..

Study Afghanistan in the 80's and 90's and then say something realistic.

[icee]

26. I too am a veteran. This war is a waste of time and money, and

it now belongs solely to Barack Obama. Iraq was the US's biggest mistake ever--far bigger than the war I was in: Vietnam. Iraq, in fact, I believe was the US's Parthia. It set the stage for the end of the US. Afghanistan will be lost because of terrain and disinterest by the Afghani army, many of which are on drugs. If we left Aghanistan, not much would happen there, but in the US, America would begin a rebuilding process--a real one, not the pretend farce happening now. Every day we continue our stay in Afghanistan and also venture into other poor alledgedly al Qaeda infested countries is another day of victory for the neocons. The US's greatest enemy now is the US.

[DCBob]

98. Totally agree with this assessment olegramps. The Taliban cannot be trusted.

These are the same hyper-religious wackos who destroyed the ancient stone Buddhas and harbored OBL and his band of 9/11 terrorists. There are a few who have moderated but the leadership still appears to be deadly determined to destroy all non-Islamic influences in the entire country.

[No Elephants]

105. Please see Reply 102.

[DCBob]

111. Please see a therapist...

your mind is bad.

[Xicano]

107. Your argument that their country will go to hell in a hand basket if we pull out...

...is EXACTLY the same argument that was made against talk of pulling out of Vietnam. And guess which folks were making that argument? Republicans, conservatives, wall streeters and folks like Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger. You get the picture.

Secondly, anybody with just a little sense knows damn well we ain't there for no other reason than empire expansionism. If you don't know that by now.


Fuck Obama! He ain't no Democrat. He's a fucking war mongering wall street corporatist. The sooner he and his sort are out of office the better for all us poor and working folks.

[NJmaverick]

6. Views Improve Sharply in Afghanistan, Though Criticisms of the U.S. Stay High

Source: ABC News

Hopes for a brighter future have soared in Afghanistan, bolstered by a broad rally in support for the country's re-elected president, improved development efforts and economic gains. Blame on the United States and NATO for violence has eased – but their overall ratings remain weak.
In one key shift, the latest poll by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV finds that sharply more Afghans now see the Taliban as the main source of their country's strife, while many fewer blame the United States or its allies – significant progress in a central aim of the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Another, basic change is larger still: After steep declines in recent years there's been a 30-point advance in views that the country is headed in the right direction; 70 percent now say so, the most since 2005. Afghans' expectations that their own lives will be better a year from now have jumped by 20 points, to 71 percent, a new high. And there's been a 14-point rise in expectations that the next generation will have a better life, to 61 percent.

Many challenges remain. Complaints about official corruption are higher than ever. Views of the United States and NATO's performance remain poor, with six in 10 rating their work negatively. And accounts of local violence have held steady, with many Afghans still blaming allied forces for civilian casualties. All these raise the question of whether the overall improvements can hold as Hamid Karzai's honeymoon fades and the fighting continues.

There also are significant regional differences. Support for U.S. and NATO efforts are sharply lower in the South and East, where the fighting is heaviest. Local support for the Taliban rises to 27 percent on its home turf, in the country's Southwest, vs. 10 percent in the rest of the country. And views of the country's direction are markedly less bright in some high-conflict areas, such as Helmand, heart of the opium poppy trade.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/views-improve-sharply-afghanistan-criticisms-us-stay-high/story?id=9511961

---

Extremely good news for all involved. Check out the link as it gives detailed information on how the poll was conducted.

[Bragi]

7. "the country's re-elected president" good joke! /nt

[NJmaverick]

9. This is excellent news and certainly bolsters the moral standings of our endevor

[Dr.Phool]

10. There is no moral standing in our endeavor.

There's a reason empires die in Afghanistan.

[NJmaverick]

12. I fault George Bush for failing to negotiate with the Taliban

howeever in the end Al Qaeda could not go unaccountable for their attacks on 9/11. I think it's a testiment to our nation and our soldiers that we are still welcome after all these years.

[Turborama]

87. I blame Busch for promising a ‘Marshall Plan’ for Afghanistan and never seeing it through

As well as other Western leaders for not seeing through with promises of reconstruction from the get go.

For an understanding of the disastrous policies that have led us to the mess we are in in Afghanistan, read this timeline from History Commons on the failure to meet redevelopment promises from 2001 to 2008: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_economic_reconstruction

Joe Biden called for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan even before the invasion: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/ret.biden.afghanistan/

[No Elephants]

108. Well, he did have planes drop peanut butter on the Afghanis.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

70. Catch phrases aren't particularly useful in helping us understand this war.

Do you have something of substance to add?

[No Elephants]

106. Why is it Dr. Phool's job to help anyone "understand" this war?

Besides, your positions are clearly not about to change.

[avaistheone1]

14. Moral standing of our endeavor?

That has got to be the biggest laugh of the year! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What's next? "Troops give their lives on Karzai's altar of freedom"? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

33. You can laugh all you want, but don't IGNORE THE FACTS

facts should form our opinions and not the other way around.

[Bragi]

27. That's the PR point, false as it may be /nt

[NJmaverick]

34. Don't ignore the facts, because they don't support your opinion

modify your position in accordance with the facts.

[icee]

28. Moral standing our endeavor? Oh, please.... Vomit time........nft

ddd

[NJmaverick]

35. Please don't ingore the facts because they don't support your position

modify your position to account for the facts.

[icee]

37. I've watched enough of you folks kill innocent farmers to have

my facts self-supported for a lifetime. You people will kill people right up until the time a group of the innocents comes up with a way to obliterate you. And an ABC poll commissioned by our crap government don't change things one iota.

[NJmaverick]

38. You watched them how exactly?

[icee]

47. By standing a klick away and watching them do it.

[Kolesar]

54. I am skeptical...eom

[icee]

56. Of course. Your posts indicate you are another person whose

answer to everything is war. You and people like you have cost the US it's virtual lifeblood--actually and metaphorically. I had people like you out of my command so fast it would make your head spin. Now run along...I'm certain there's a group of starving peasants somewhere that need their door bashed in.

[Kolesar]

63. Your experience at war is fighting on the internet

and not much more

[fascisthunter]

113. you sure about that?

[NJmaverick]

85. Pretty good eyes to see that far

who are you? clark kent?

[icee]

86. Yeah, Clark Kent with Field Glasses...Duh. Stick to peeling

potatoes or cleaning latrines, E-1.

[tekisui]

15. Some of the more unplesant numbers from the poll:

More Afghans also say the United States and NATO are doing worse, not better, in avoiding civilian casualties, by 43-24 percent. This may reflect dismay over widely publicized individual incidents, such as the bombing of a pair of hijacked fuel tankers in September that killed scores of civilians in Kunduz province. It’s another measure the allies want to move their way if their basic support is to rise.

BOTTOM LINES – Fundamentally, just 38 percent rate the work of the United States in Afghanistan positively.

(snip)

Nearly all Afghans – 95 percent – now say official corruption is a problem in their area, up 23 points since 2007. Seventy-six percent say it’s a big problem; both are new highs.

Outside their immediate area, 90 percent see official corruption as a problem at the provincial level, and 83 percent call it a problem in the national government in Kabul – both vast numbers – with nearly two-thirds saying it’s a big problem at both these levels of government.

(snip)

Strikingly, just 42 percent in the South and East support the presence of U.S. forces in their area, compared with 78 percent in the rest of the country. Positive ratings of the U.S. performance dive to 16 percent in the South and 28 percent in the East, vs. 45 percent in the rest of the country. And just 26 percent in these two regions are confident in the ability of U.S. and NATO forces to provide security, compared with 56 percent elsewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1099a1Afghanistan-WhereThingsStand.pdf
______________________________________________________________________________________
The South and East have seen the most violence and have seen an increase in violence recently. The pollsters state that they polled 1,534 randomly selected Afghans in all 34 of the country’s provinces.

Selection of sampling points was based on population proportion.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Of the 101 districts initially drawn in the sample, 11 were inaccessible for security reasons and were randomly replaced with other districts in the same province.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/afghanistan-poll-note-methodology/story?id=9512487

[Kolesar]

18. Despite the civilian casualties, the approval is still 78%

President Obama is not responsible for the corruption under Karzai's "leadership".

[tekisui]

21. Where the civilian casualties are actually occuring, support is 16%

Positive ratings of the U.S. performance dive to 16 percent in the South and 28 percent in the East, vs. 45 percent in the rest of the country.


Why did you bring President Obama into this? I thought it was about the what the Afghan people thought. Or, is the perception of Obama more important than those dying by our actions?

[Kolesar]

42. I wrote to Obama and advised that we withdraw from Afghanistan

...before he decided to send more "troops" to Afghanistan.

I am surprised that the US is regarded this well.

I'm just reporting what I read on Salon. It is some people's agenda to make the worst of everything mentioned about Afghanistan on the Democratic Underground.

[tekisui]

62. I don't disagree at all.

It goes the other way too, though. Some people's agenda is to make everything seem noble, just and improving in Afghanistan.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

71. Right, but keep in mind, these are also the areas most likely to be sympathetic to the Taliban

to begin with. That doesn't mean we can discount these numbers altogether, but it is something we ought to keep in mind while seeking to understand them.

[fascisthunter]

114. ding, ding, ding

[NJmaverick]

30. You are absolutely correct

[Dr.Phool]

17. Who did they poll? The Taliban we're paying not to attack us?

[NJmaverick]

31. Here is the detailed report

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1099a1Afghanistan-WhereThingsStand.pdf

[Romulox]

20. Anybody care what AMERICANS think? Unrec. nt

[NJmaverick]

32. Want to hide these pesky facts do you?

[Xipe Totec]

23. Correction: 7 in 10 Afghans polled support U.S. forces n/t

[grahamhgreen]

24. Did they knock on doors or call them on landlines or cell phones???

And if they knocked, did they have a soldier with them as security?

[NJmaverick]

29. Here is the detailed report with how it was conducted

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1099a1Afghanistan-WhereThingsStand.pdf

[EFerrari]

36. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[NJmaverick]

39. There is nothng funny nor pathetic about the FACT that the Afghan

people want us to stay.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bragi]

40. Try polling the Pashtuns

The US and its allies are not fighting all Afghan tribes, they are fighting the Pashtun tribes who live in the south. The folks in the north are governed by war lords and drug barons paid by and allied to the US. They are fine with the current situation.

Anyway, I'm not sure if there are regional breakdowns here, but I'm gonna guess that support for the American occupation is not anywhere near as high if you poll the Pashtuns people in the south, who are most affected by and involved in the fighting.

[Kolesar]

44. I know you're not sure and you're "guessing"

Get back when you have something concrete.

[Bragi]

58. Well, let's see now...

So the report notes: "There also are significant regional differences. Support for U.S. and NATO efforts are sharply lower in the South and East, where the fighting is heaviest."

It states:

"Critical from the U.S. perspective is that, despite poor views of its performance, 68 percent of
Afghans continue to support the presence of U.S. forces in their country – and nearly as many,
61 percent, favor the coming surge of Western troops initiated by President Obama. But support
for the surge drops to 42 percent in the South and East; support for the presence of U.S. forces
also drops in these regions, and support for attacks on U.S. and NATO forces, while sharply
down overall, remains much higher in the restive South."

There are other similar statements in the report showing the regional differences. The demographic data at the end of the poll shows that less than a third of the respondents spoke Pashtun, and only about 25 per cent of respondents were from the southern region.

This indicates that 2/3 to 3/4 of the respondents were from the areas where the US isn't actually fighting, and where it buys the support of local war lords and drug barons.

My original point stands.

- B

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. What is your overall point, exactly?

[Bragi]

76. That the poll is meaningless PR /nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

77. How so? Because they didn't OVERREPRESENT the Pashtun?

That argument makes little sense.

[Bragi]

84. I'll try one more time

My point is that this poll does not reflect reality IN THE PART OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE WAR IS BEING WAGED.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

95. Afghanistan is a big place, why the tunnel vision?

[NJmaverick]

82. Read the details of the report

they covered a lot of ground

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1099a1Afghanistan-WhereThingsStand.pdf

[daleo]

41. I wonder what a Tass poll would have said in 1985?

Methinks support for the occupation would have been equally high.

[Kolesar]

43. lame...eom

[daleo]

45. Why is it lame?

It is undoubtedly true, and you just don't have an actual substantive response. Responding "lame" is itself lame (i.e. indicates a weak debating position).

[Kolesar]

46. An off topic, stupid, sarcastic, throwaway statement

That explains why your comment is lame.

[daleo]

49. No, it is a historical parallel with the current occupation

Public opinion polls done by the representives of the occupying power have little or no legitimacy - this is as true now as it was during the Soviet invasion (or the Viet Nam war, for that matter).

Why do they have little or no legitimacy?
- they may be manipulated by the occupying power.
- they may be biased by the realities of the conflict (you can only poll in certain areas, so the sample is not representative).
- respondents may fear telling their real opinion to pollsters connected to the occupying power.

If the Afghanistan election couldn't be trusted to be honest, why would a poll be reliable?

[Kolesar]

51. Tass has nothing to do with this war in Afghanistan

look at the calender, what year is this?

[daleo]

57. I am comparing this invasion to the Soviet invasion

And stating that we would never have trusted a Soviet poll of Afghan citizens regarding the Soviet invasion in the 1980's. So why would we trust this poll? The same factors are in play in both occupations, as far as believing opinion polls of the occupied country's citizens go. You have abandoned your critical faculties in this regard.

I like Obama, but I think this war is a mistake.

[Dr.Phool]

48. Because Pravda would have done it, silly.

Not Tass.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Bunk! They did a poll in October of 09 where 54% of Afghan People do NOT trust

the American invaders.

What was the methodology of THIS SURVEY?

The Afghan People HATE the American Invaders. No trumped up polls can spin "the bloody obvious" other wise. :puke:

[Kolesar]

52. I don't expect too much from your posts...eom

[ShortnFiery]

59. That's because I present contrary data and opinions to the "War is Peace" mentality

of the Executive Branch far too many here love to adore. :eyes: You're all welcome to cheer lead for ENDLESS WAR but don't you DARE consider that the continued killing and dying is, in any way, HUMANITARIAN in origin or focus.

These occupations are ALL ABOUT geopolitical positioning for POWER and GREED to exploit the natural resources of the area. NOTHING MORE! :grr: :puke: :grr:



http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=702

The invasion is part of a geostrategic plan to isolate China from Pakistan and control the bridge between Iran and China. Balkanisation of Pakistan and Afghanistan is part of the game. Elements in Pak. govt. are corrupt and can be manipulated by Anglo/America/Mossad operatives using drug money for black operations like the support for Jundallah to attack Iran.

The goal is to control pipeline routes to deny China access and of course to profit from Caspian sea hydrocarbons. Redrawing of the borders to isolate China from its ally Pakistan,the arming of India for future conflict with China as well as border destabilisations against China in Burma,Tibet,via the Uighurs and elsewhere. The creation of US bases to the north to complete the encirclement of Russia and its bilateral trading partner China.For a full analysis go to Globalresearch.ca and study the articles by Nazemroaya and others.

[icee]

60. This is just one more poll manipulated by the US military to

suit its purpose. I remember these in Vietnam. They would ask 20 Vietnamese how they thought the war was going, then use mainly the ones that answered what the pollsters want to hear. Sometimes they would steer the answers. All a crock.

[ShortnFiery]

64. You got that right.

There's no way to verify this either but FWIW, as a Graduate Student I was hired by the US Navy to be part of "a team" conducting survey research.

Yes, especially with regard to polling/self report data analyses ...

There's LIES, DAMN LIES, and STATISTICS. :evilgrin:

As you mentioned above, a myriad of factors can enter into skewing the data. I doubt that a rigorous examination was conducted BEFORE the survey's founders sent their underlings off to validate their hypotheses. :(

[NJmaverick]

81. Here is the detailed report with how it was conducted

The methodology was sound

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1099a1Afghanistan-WhereThingsStand.pdf

[ShortnFiery]

55. "national random sample" = Afghan people who are safe to query in Karzai's major population areas.

:crazy:

I'd bet good money that not many "tribal peoples" were surveyed in this manufactured poll.

[Bragi]

61. You are correct

Less than a third of the respondents were Pashtuns living in the US-occupied southern areas.

The people in support of the U.S. are those living in the east and north, where the US has bought the support of the local drug lords and tribal barons.

This poll is a pure PR exercise.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Thank yo u for taking the time to study the methodology.

What's sad is that they don't even TRY to appear sophisticated when reporting this TRASH.

I feel as if I'm living in the land of "sheep." Our only hope is that people become ENGAGED once they are hurt financially.

Lord knows, the occupation and SENSELESS deaths of our military and foreign innocents can't get enough people to care. Not even the FACT that our "adventures" in these countries are bleeding out trillions of our tax dollars.

I'm so saddened - the American People just stare and remain docile.

We need to get organized before us lowly peasants have a voice in Congress. <understated>

[icee]

67. We are doomed because we are too weary to resist the power

overtaking us. Our end will not be revolution as I had thought for years. It will be defeat economically by the combined effort of the rest of the world. It's happening now. You put some of these war mongers on the battlefield wars would stop pronto.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

74. But he didn't, really.

He simply stated at the Pashtuns should have been given a larger representation, without providing any basis as for why that's the case. I realize you don't like the war, but jumping on every half-baked criticism of this poll as if it were gospel just makes you look bad...

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

73. Do you have a reason to argue that the Pashtun tribes should have been given a larger representation

in this poll? Or is this simply your way of trying to worm away from the findings?

[Bragi]

78. I'm saying the poll is irrelevant to what is happening...

You can poll people outside the fighting zone as much as you want, but nothing will change on the ground where the fight is taking place, and no good will come from this pointless war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

96. I would argue the exact opposite

If you can win over and secure a majority of the country and bring it the promised advances in technology, medicine, etc. you're more likely to win over the common people of Southern Afghanistan, who will see their peaceful neighbors in other parts moving ahead. As it stands today, much of the aid is being delivered to the hands of leaders in areas loyal to the Taliban, so the people there see their allegiance to the Taliban as paying off and bringing them benefits. If we shift that and direct it towards the people who are actually seeking an Afghanistan free from an extremist insurgency, we undercut the Taliban's support.

[NJmaverick]

80. It's not a good idea to readily dismiss facts that don't support your view

rather you should examine them and adjust your views accordingly.

[Odin2005]

83. I see the usual suspects are dismissing facts they don't like. K&R.

And one of them is engaging in her usual "fiery" illogical screeds.

[Turborama]

89. K&R Democrats aren't immune to cognitive dissonance.

This poll cites other polls dating back to 05 which were much less favorable. I expect the "usual suspects" agreed wholeheartedly with the ones that fitted in with their "OUT NOW!" agenda.

Poll shows more optimism in Afghanistan

Afghans are far more optimistic about their future than they were a year ago and support the presence of US troops in their country, according to a http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf">poll released yesterday.

Some 70 per cent of Afghans think their country is “going in the right direction”, compared with 40 per cent a year earlier – the highest figure since 2005, according to the survey for the BBC, ABC news and ARD of Germany.

Of those polled, 68 per cent support the presence of US troops in the country and slightly fewer – 62 per cent – support the presence of British and other troops.

Despite claims to represent the Afghan people, the Taleban won little support: 69 per cent of Afghans said they presented the greatest danger to the country’s future.

=snip=

"The http://www.acsor-surveys.com/public/home.asp">Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research spoke to 1,534 Afghans in all 34 provinces in December for the poll, which has been carried out every year since 2005 apart from 2008."

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6984257.ece

[EFerrari]

91. I'm sorry but a poll result is only the fact of the result

not what the poll purports to measure.

Find a video of any Afghan adult saying they support the occupation. :shrug:

RAWA wants us out. Random people interviewed on the street want us out. I tend to trust primary sources before I trust Pentagon propaganda. :shrug:

[Turborama]

92. The latest Afghanistan poll sponsored by ABC, BBC & ARD German news is now "Pentagon Propaganda"?

That statement kind of proves the original point I was making. If this poll sponsored by ABC et al is "Pentagon propaganda", why would they have publicized a poll, sponsored by the same news organizations, that told a completely different story a year ago?

The 1st 3 articles are http://www.d3systems.com/public/news.asp">based on another D3 poll conducted at the beginning of last year. (Strangely, these ABC articles weren't posted on DU at the time. I suspect it's because the attention on Afghanistan only began to erupt when McChrystal's document was leaked. I know from experience that before then most articles posted here about Afghanistan rapidly dropped off the 1st page. For examples on how Obama's troop increase early last year went largely unnoticed on DU see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5340607">here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3744794">here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3758783">here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5078319">here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3744341">here & http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/archives.php?date=2009x2x17">here.)

Where Things Stand: Afghanistan in Turmoil

By MARTHA RADDATZ, RICHARD COOLIDGE, AUDREY TAYLOR and THERESA COOK
Feb. 9, 2009.

Despite seven years of fighting, the lives of more than 600 U.S. servicemen and women, and billions of dollars in aid, Afghan opinions of the United States and their own government have dramatically deteriorated, according to the latest ABC News polling.

In 2005, with liberation from the Taliban still fresh, 83 percent of Afghans had a favorable view of the United States. Today, with widespread violence and staggeringly slow redevelopment, it has plunged to 47 percent.

Asked whether their country is moving in the right direction, only 40 percent say yes, compared to 77 percent four years ago.

The results are from an exclusive national survey produced by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV. Pollsters interviewed more than 1,500 Afghans in all 34 of the country's provinces.

From the back alleys of Kandahar to the mountains of the Hindu Kush to the streets of Kabul, Afghan pollsters have seen profound pessimism across the country.

Full article: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/International/Story?id=6822139&page=1

Frustration With War, Problems in Daily Life Send Afghans' Support for U.S. Efforts Tumbling

ABC News/BBC/ARD National Survey of Afghanistan
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
Feb. 9, 2009

The United States, its NATO allies and the government of Hamid Karzai are losing not just ground in Afghanistan – but also the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

A new national public opinion poll in Afghanistan by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV finds that performance ratings and support levels for the Kabul government and its Western allies have plummeted from their peaks, particularly in the past year. Widespread strife, a resurgent Taliban, struggling development, soaring corruption and broad complaints about food, fuel, power and prices all play a role.

Click here for http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf">PDF of analysis with charts and full questionnaire.

Click here for http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/fullpage?id=6797795">charts on the results.

Click here for http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/popup?id=6794556">photos from the field.

The effects are remarkable: With expectations for security and economic development unmet, the number of Afghans who say their country is headed in the right direction has dived from 77 percent in 2005 to 40 percent now – fewer than half for the first time in these polls.

In 2005, moreover, 83 percent of Afghans expressed a favorable opinion of the United States – unheard of in a Muslim nation. Today just 47 percent still hold that view, down 36 points, accelerating with an 18-point drop in U.S. favorability this year alone. For the first time slightly more Afghans now see the United States unfavorably than favorably.

Full article: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686&page=1

Afghanistan Poll: Note on Methodology

National Afghanistan survey involved a random sample of 1,534 Afghan adults
Feb. 9, 200

This survey was conducted for ABC News, the BBC and ARD by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR) in Kabul, a subsidiary of D3 Systems Inc. in Vienna, Va. Interviews were conducted in person, in Dari or Pashto, among a random national sample of 1,534 Afghan adults from Dec. 30, 2008 to Jan. 12, 2009.

A total of 194 sampling points were distributed proportional to population size in each of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, stratified by urban/nonurban status. Sampling points were then distributed to randomly selected districts within provinces, also proportionate to population size; and lastly to randomly selected villages or neighborhoods within those districts, by simple random sampling. Sources for population parameters were population projections from the Afghan Central Statistics Office.

Half the sampling points were designated for male interviews, half for female interviews. Male respondents were interviewed only by male interviewers, female respondents only by female interviewers. Residences were selected within each settlement by random route/random interval and respondents were selected within residence by Kish grid.

In addition to the national sample, oversamples were drawn in Balkh, Helmand, Herat, Kandahar, Kunduz, Logar, Nangarhar and Wardak provinces to allow for more reliable analysis in those areas. The sample was weighted by population of province to correct for the oversample.

Full article: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787742

As for what the oft cited RAWA think, they are not the only women in Afghanistan with an opinion.

Afghan women leaders ask troops to stay -- for now

Submitted by cw4w on Thu, 2009-11-12 20:48

In Washington and London, politicians debate whether to send more troops to Afghanistan or pull out entirely. But Afghan women leaders have a different message: Give us stronger support from the troops and NGOs already here.

by http://www.thedailybeast.com/author/gayle-tzemach-lemmon/">Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Daily Beast Contributor

=snip=

Uncertainty has marked the months since the Afghan campaign season began. Business investment has plunged and foreign donor decisions have been placed on hold until the security situation improves. From aid organizations deciding on next year's priorities to Afghans reluctant to spend cash they might need if the country sinks into chaos once more, everyone seems to be waiting to see what shape events will take. "Everyone thought that this election would bring change and a chance for the improvement and the development of the country, but the situation has made us hopeless," said Leeda Yacoubi, deputy director of http://www.afghanwomensnetwork.org/about.php">Afghan Women's Network, an umbrella organization of women's groups which counts 65 members nationwide. "Before, donors were supporting long-term projects, but now they are three-month, four-month, six- month projects; they do not fully trust the situation in Afghanistan and they don't want to invest."

This, say Yacoubi and others, is a mistake. Despite the admittedly grave problems of corruption and insecurity plaguing their impoverished country, women leaders say Afghanistan has made real progress during the past eight years thanks to the presence of international troops. "Before 2001, Afghanistan was like a strainer: Anything you put in it fell to the bottom and right through the cracks," said Aziza, an entrepreneur with her own soccer ball manufacturing company. Aziza, who asked that we use only her first name for security reasons, shared her views while waiting for NATO staff to pick up an order for 3,000 soccer balls. "Now we are building
something, we are creating a foundation for this country."

=snip=

Even while some political activists and pundits in Washington and London sound the call for a full troop withdrawal, women here argue that a complete pullback would only exacerbate the battery of formidable problems plaguing their struggling nation. Though nearly all say the international community could have done a far better job in securing a teetering Afghanistan, where practically every citizen can now rattle off a personal tale of corruption, few women say they believe foreign forces should go. In a series of
conversations with a dozen women leaders spanning a range of sectors, from health care to business to politics, some of whom rarely speak to journalists, the consensus was that existing troops must stay for now-if only because things would be far worse were they to leave. Insecurity would rise, the Taliban would gain power, and women and girls would immediately lose ground.

"Pull out, get out, give up is not the way to solve Afghanistan's problems," Afghan parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai told The Daily Beast. She and several other women leaders say that while they are not convinced Afghanistan needs more American soldiers, there is no question the future of their country depends on those forces already there.

=snip=

In the end, the women say, it is up to the Americans alone to decide whether more troops are critical to their revised strategy. Many women are skeptical that they are. But they are also surprised to hear that restive publics in America and Europe are clamoring for all their soldiers in Afghanistan to come home. And they wonder if Westerners have forgotten why their forces came to the long-troubled country in the first place.

Full article: http://www.cw4wafghan.ca/news/afghan-women-leaders-ask-troops-stay-now

Eight Years On: The View From Afghan Women
Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
Posted: October 7, 2009 10:06 AM

Women in Afghanistan do not ask the United States to stay for the simple or sentimental reason of safeguarding their rights. They are the first ones to say that this is not enough of a reason for the world's remaining superpower to remain in their country. Nor do they favor an extended version of a long-term occupation: Afghans want to be able to govern and to provide for their own nation.

But they say over and over again that an Afghanistan left to fend for itself before it can stand on its own after eight years of an under-resourced reconstruction effort and alongside an increasingly bold insurgency will not long remain an isolated problem. It is certain to become the world's concern once more, they say, the only question is when. That, in many women's view, is the lesson of history, not the misapplied lesson of the Russian invasion. The majority of Afghans do not see the Americans as foreign occupiers who must be defeated. Instead, they are hungry for the Americans to step up and help them make their country safer, their government cleaner and their economy stronger. They are disappointed because the international community has done too little, not too much.

Women do not ask for protection of their rights simply because they are women; they seek assistance for their country simply because the stakes are too high -- for them and for the American public. Afghanistan's mothers and sisters and daughters are eager to build upon the gains that strengthened security, a weakened insurgency and a functioning state make possible; they want the Americans to help them get there, not just for their own children's sake, but because they know a return to the failed state of Taliban-governed Afghanistan will not end in peace. If the Taliban return to play host once more to forces like Al Qaeda, who use their country as a training camp and staging ground, they know the chances for Afghanistan's next generation will be lost. And that, they say, would be a tragic failure not just for their own nation, but for the world, which will once again be forced to come in, clean up and root out instead of getting the job done now, while there is still a chance of a more peaceful ending, despite all the problems.

"You cannot expect so much change in one or two or even five years," says Dr. Noorkhanoom, a female doctor who has overseen maternal health programs for the Swiss NGO Terre des Hommes since the Taliban took Kabul in 1996. "I hope the international community will continue to support us; they left us once and they saw the negative results. If this country is secure, the region will be secure. If they leave this country again, it will be a crime."

Full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gayle-tzemach/eight-years-on-the-view-f_b_312324.html

AFGHANISTAN: WOMEN STRIVE TO MAKE VOICES HEARD IN STRATEGIC DEBATE
Aunohita Mojumdar 10/07/09

=cut=

"Demilitarization is not practical in the current situation," well-known activist Suraya Parlika said, pointing to the deteriorating security situation. "Look at what is happening in Helmand and Kandahar. Violence is now spreading to northern Afghanistan. At this time we cannot think of demilitarization. We have to first create conditions that pave the way for demilitarization."

The stance of the Afghan participants took other meeting delegations by surprise. The conference was ostensibly designed to promote a "peace trialogue" among women from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The widespread assumption heading into the meeting was that Afghan women would support the idea of an immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from the country. Indeed, the Afghan barrage of support for a continued strong foreign troop presence came in response to Indian participants’ suggestions that Afghan women should call for a speedy withdrawal.

A visiting delegation of Code Pink, a US-based anti-war women’s group, was also in Kabul to lobby local women to call for a fast American military exit. But following discussions with Afghan activists, Code Pink representatives admitted that their stance might need to be adjusted. Code Pink’s Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin said that while they still wanted the Obama Administration to work towards an exit strategy, they were reconsidering their calls for a two-year withdrawal timeline.

"We have been feeling a sense of fear of the people of the return of the Taliban. So many people saying that, ’If the US troops left, the country would collapse; we’d go into civil war.’ A palpable sense of fear is making us start to reconsider," Benjamin told EurasiaNet.

Full article: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav100709.shtml

'Code Pink' rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout

In Afghanistan, the US women's activist group finds that their Afghan counterparts want US troop presence – as well as more reconstruction.

Kabul, Afghanistan
When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.

She was disappointed.

Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. "It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources," she answered. "Coming together they will help with better reconstruction."

Rethinking their position

Code Pink, founded in 2002 to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, is one of the more high-profile women's antiwar groups being forced to rethink its position as Afghan women explain theirs: Without international troops, they say, armed groups could return with a vengeance – and that would leave women most vulnerable.

Though Afghans have their grievances against the international troops' presence, chief among them civilian casualties, many fear an abrupt departure would create a dangerous security vacuum to be filled by predatory and rapacious militias. Many women, primary victims of such groups in the past, are adamant that international troops stay until a sufficient number of local forces are trained and the rule of law established.

Full article: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html

If you want to see a video showing how local people feel about NATO troops' activities, check out this video that shows how villagers feel about the British Royal Marines' protection of the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5777799&mesg_id=5781231">Kajaki dam. Particularly 0:55 to 2:26 & 5:58 to 7:05 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5MpZ1aWJXw">Part 1 and 0:00 to 0:57 & 6:16 to 6:46 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRQ6FImu0I8">Part 2.

(Cross posted from, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4183217&mesg_id=4184514">here)

[ronnie624]

110. Did you actually watch the video to which you linked?

It does not show what you claim. There are no Afghan opinions expressed. The video is unadulterated military propaganda.

The United States did not invade Afghanistan to free women. Empires are not motivated by a concern for human rights. They seek strategic advantage over potential rivals and control over resources, and they are perfectly willing to generate chaos and sacrifice many lives in pursuit of their goals. See the words of those who have established our policies regarding Afghanistan going back thirty years. Examine the declassified CIA documents that discuss candidly the fact that Afghan civil society will be severely damaged by U.S. intervention. The price for instigating a proxy war in Afghanistan was known and deemed acceptable by U.S. foreign policy elites.

As the chaos and extremism in Afghanistan is a direct result of U.S. military intervention, with full awareness of the potential consequences to Afghan society, it seems unlikely the solution to Afghanistan's problems will include more military intervention.

[The abyss]

88. Vichy

7 in 10 French citizens support the Vichy government and German occupation north of Paris.

61 percent favor full occupation south of Paris due to partisan and resistance activity.

Did the Nazis do polls?

[Kolesar]

90. See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4219906&mesg_id=4220225

[Bragi]

109. American Civil War Poll

Lincoln could have said at any time that the civil war was just because it was backed by the majority of Americans. However, almost none of these supporters were in the rebel states where the war was principally taking place.

That poll would have been as meaningful as the poll discussed in this thread.

[fascisthunter]

112. lol... ok, if ya say so

I'll stick with what soldiers on the ground have told me themselves

[IndianaGreen]

115. Experts on Afghanistan doubt survey on foreign occupation: results are impossible

Experts On Afghanistan Doubt Survey On Foreign Occupation: Results Are Impossible

A new survey of the Afghan people is being touted as evidence that hearts and minds may, in fact, be warming to the U.S.'s military presence, which is heading into its ninth year.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, generally a critic of the continuation of the war, heralded the survey as hopeful news on Tuesday night.

But can it be taken seriously?

In a word, no, say people who have worked extensively on the ground in Afghanistan.

HuffPost interviewed Prakhar Sharma, head of research at the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies (CAPS) in Kabul, who has done a large amount of public-opinion research work in Afghanistan, where he is based; Matthew Hoh, a foreign service officer who resigned last September in protest of the administration's Afghan policy; Anand Gopal, a Wall Street Journal reporter who has traveled widely in Afghanistan; and Christian Parenti, a reporter with The Nation who travels frequently to Afghanistan and was the field producer of the Afghanistan-based documentary The Fixer

Four of the five say that reliable survey results in Afghanistan are impossible for several obvious reasons, and some not so obvious. The obvious ones first: The Taliban controls large swaths of the country and the war has made much of the country unsafe to travel through. The Taliban doesn't do surveys, so anybody approached by somebody with a clipboard knows that the person either represents foreign troops, the central government or a private company associated with one or both.

Then there are the not-so-immediately obvious reasons: Afghanistan is a highly patriarchal society, meaning that getting a woman's true opinion is extremely hard. Sharma said that his research teams have never been able to get even close to the 50-50 male/female split that the ABC survey claims.

Getting a man's honest opinion is no simple task, either, he said, because the responses are calculated to protect and benefit the respondent's family and village. "The Afghans know it when they see sudden changes in development assistance, changes in government officers, police tashkils/numbers , more/less operations immediately after the polls. It is difficult to pretend to them that the polls do not matter. Their responses are therefore calculated," he said.

Those with experience in Afghanistan were skeptical that the surveyors actually went where they said they did. "If you look at it, the polling was conducted in built-up areas, in urban areas where we have our bases and where the Afghan government has a presence, primarily off the major highways," said Hoh. "So through the South and West of the country, primarily it was done right along Highway 1 where the government has control and where we have control. Off those areas, we don't have control."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/afghanistan-experts-doubt_n_422482.html

Here are the threads were the flawed survey was posted:

Poll: 7 in 10 Afghans support U.S. forces

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4219906

Poll: 7 in 10 Afghans support US forces

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7438570