THE POPPY FIELDS OF AFGHANISTAN
Millions of people will be wearing a poppy today, in sombre remembrance of fallen soldiers. The original symbolism of the poppy was from the killing fields of Flanders, where the artillery churned the mud, and this caused poppies to grow like a red carpet, and the transient nature of the poppy flower seemed all too poignant for the young men ground through the mincer of trench warfare.
Remembrance day was originally not a state sponsored event, but started after the Great War as an almost spontaneous mass, popular expresion of shared grief. The democratising of grief for the military is a subject I have written about before, in a discussion of the war memorials of Charles Sergeant Jagger:
The Army and the government are going to celebrate the war in remembrance services whatever happens. But this is a contested process. Britain still has a substantial and disproportionate military capability, and we are habituated to British troops being posted around the world in perpetual low level warfare. But ever since the First World War, the political battle to win the support of people behind these wars has been couched in terms of this being a necessary and tragic sacrifice for worthy and democratic goals – however deceitful that propaganda might be.
Just a few years earlier, war had been justifed by Jingoistic pride in the military might and pomp of the Empire. Now almost no-one celebrates militarism directly; and the predominant cultural theme surrounding war in England is the experience of grief and loss.
It is important to recognise that the public emotion around the dead from Afghanistan is a very volatile and unstable mixture. For example, the way that the commemoration of the dead passing through Wootton Bassett has become a media circus, is resented locally, where people just see it as a natural mark of respect. To the government’s credit they have avoided using it as a political football.
The military is deeply embedded in working class culture in Britain. Almost all of us have friends or relatives serving, or who have served. Indeed, dogged resilience and discipline in a crisis are national characteristics that the British are proud to self-identify with, and this has a natural connection with service life. Our militaristic history has reinforced this trait, but the ideology of the modern British nation has been recast, as the Second World War is seen not as a war for Empire, but a war for democracy and against fascism.
Ever since politicians have lied and dressed every potential foe in Hitler’s clothes, and every land where British soldiers fight is being liberated for democracy, however hollow and unreal that claim.
There is paradoxically also a long tradition that working class soldiers lives are seen as recklessly wasted. This is particularly evident in the work of Kipling, who was an enthusiastic Imperialist, but never a jingoist: there is always sorrow, ambiguity and regret in his war poetry. How prescient his poem sounds now:
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier. ”
The symbolism of the poppy was originally the transient nature of life, when millions of young men could be mown down in a bitter harvest. What an irony that British soldiers are now actually fighting in the land where the poppy is grown as a crop; and the harvest is the heroin sold on our city streets, robbing the hope and future from our children.
Young men are being killed in Afghanistan to prop up the rule of corrupt war lords, misogynists and gangsters, and to prevent another identical set of corrupt war lords, misogynists and gangsters taking power. The Taliban may be feared by many villagers, but they fear the corrupt and venal Afghan police force that the British are training just as much.
Afghanistan is not the Third Reich, and we will not bring democracy to that hard mountain landscape through sacrificing young soldiers’ lives. The war goes on out of stubbonness, and the failure of the Western governments to face up to the hopelessness of their position. The only possible solution would be one that removed Western troops, and involved the neighbouring countries in a regional peace and stabilisation initiative.
Britain has lost the war in Afghanistan. There is no achievable outcome that can make the deaths of these young men worthwhile. The suffering of the Afghan people continues, and they want us gone. For pity’s sake, let us end the war now and bring these soldiers home, safe and alive.
Agreed. Well said, Andy.
Comment by John — 11 November, 2009 @ 9:44 am
The US began the war in Afghanistan because 9/11 gave them the opportunity to get that oil pipeline built. Now the pipeline is never going to happen - it wouldn’t last five minutes. But the war is dragging on, and has become a big problem for imperialism. It is a war they cannot win, because they are facing massive resistance from the Afghan people.
“The war goes on out of stubbornness, and the failure of the Western governments to face up to the hopelessness of their position.” Quite so.
The imperialist bourgeoisies are united in thinking this is war they have to win - the alternative is defeat by the Taliban, which would be a massive blow to imperialism. Hence the huge push to try and get us to support the war. All the media coverage is about “our brave boys”, their lack of equipment, and so on. Unlike the Iraq War, where there were divisions in the bourgeoisie which created space for criticism, the purpose of the Afghanistan war is rarely challenged or even discussed.
The left does not want working class men and women killed in Afghanistan for an imperialist cause. Nor does it want Afghans men and women killed. The right approach is to put forward all the arguments for why the war is wrong and futile, so that the troops are brought home as soon as possible.
Comment by little black sister — 11 November, 2009 @ 10:13 am
remember Jersey
and the Jersey resistance Movement of WW2
Long live the memory of Norman Le Brocq and the Jersey resistance Movement against the “Quisling” Jersey Governmnet who sent every Jewish person on the Island to the consentration camps.
Not one person found guilty of collaboration
Comment by Sean — 11 November, 2009 @ 10:23 am
“Now almost no-one celebrates militarism directly”
Really? If parading in desert combat uniform with rifles and fixed bayonets through our town centres not militaristic and triumphalist what is? This has has been shown is grossly insensitive to some local communities and causes division not unity.
Also I totally disagree that the military is part of the fabric of the British working class, it may well be in some sections of it but as I said before the opposite is true in a large and increasing section of the class especially those whose origins are not British, do they not count as part of the class? Nobody has addrssed this at all and instead we have comments that pander to the most backward and reactionary elements.
As far as my views are concerned, I understand that in particular one of my comments may have been seen as inappropriate, it was a response to the vile far right militaristic filth spouted by your friend from Tunbridge Wells and if anyone was genuinely offended I apologise, I stand by all my other comments though. Why was he not censured in the same way that I and finnanalba have been? What he was posting was totally reactionary including threats of violence to a fellow poster. Why are people like Tunbridge Wells tolerated and those of us who hold genuine anti imperialist views and support those who fight capitalism and imperialism denounced?
Comment by paddy garcia — 11 November, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Just so. Time to go home.
I wonder at the longterm domestic political impact of this war. For everyone killed expect five wounded. We all know the army is recruited from the most economicaly deprived areas of the country. Those communities will have known the dead and be getting used to seeing maimed young people who fought in this war. I expect a great deal of bitterness that will be compounded by the military defeat that even now is looming in Afghanistan. Nor should we expect there to be no impact upon the return to civil society where guns are widely available of traumitised young people accustomed to handling weapons.
Discharged squaddies fill the prisons, make up a large section of the homeless and are very likely to become addicted to drugs and alcohol. This traditionaly has been the State’s safety valve I cannot help thinking it won’t work that way this time.
Comment by Christy — 11 November, 2009 @ 11:13 am
“The suffering of the Afghan people continues, and they want us gone. ”
The first part of this sentence is right, but the second is wrong. You can reasonably think that troops should be withdrawn, but you cannot pretend that you are speking for the Afghan people.
When asked in 2009 75% of Afghanis polled said that US troops should stay for at least the next 6 months, 41% thought they should stay for as long as it takes. 64% said that attacks on NATO troops were unjustified and 69% said that it was mostly or very good that the US invaded in the first place. Oppose the war, by all means, but recognise that you are at odds with a clear majority of the people of Afghanistan.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
#6 It is impossible to have credible polling in a situation like the war in Afghanistan.
I just finished reading the book by Afghan woman MP Malalai Joya, who passionately argues the case for NATO withdrawal, I will write a review soon.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
“It is impossible to have credible polling in a situation like the war in Afghanistan.”
The pollsters disagree and I have seen no ecvidence to support that view, although the situation is difficult. Still, all either of us have is the polls. The rest is just guessing even if some Afghans public figures argue passionately for NATO withdrawal. So, we have to ask why you are so confident that you klnow the Afghan public opinion on this if polls cannot be trusted?
I just finished reading the book by Afghan woman MP Malalai Joya, who passionately argues the case for NATO withdrawal, I will write a review soon.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Just for ref, here is what the pollsters say about the reliability of the survey:
Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul.
Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 1,534 Afghans in all of the country’s 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
On the subject of polls, around 70% of people want the troops out. This, of course, is ignored or dismissed by the government and its cronies. It’s also despite the relentless bullshit and propaganda from most media outlets. Don’t expect me to weep if they privatise the Beeb, good riddance.
Comment by Doug — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
John, I think your being a little silly here. The war is going horribly wrong its no longer a question of should ‘we’ be in Afghanistan its more of a question of how to exit with a plausible narrative.
The current strategy is to withdraw to the towns to minimise Coallition casualties. Of course it won’t as the towns are not much safer than the countryside.
You may like the war but most people in the UK already think it is lost and that it was never worth fighting in the first place. The world is changing and there is less and less place for a delusional vision of some kind benign western imperialism sorting out the problems of ‘backward peoples’ mainly by, lets be honest, killing them.
Comment by Christy — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
#9
JOhn Meredith
Do you think a polling organisation would get future funding for other polls if they said.
“We interviewed 1534 Afghans in 34 provinces, but we didn;t really gain their trust, and there is a lot of suspision about spies, the country has been involved in dirty civil war for 30 years, and people just told us what we wanted to hear. The margin of error is + or - 98%”
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
“You may like the war but most people in the UK already think it is lost and that it was never worth fighting in the first place.”
Who likes ayu wart? You may be right that the UK population want to withdraw, I was just pointing out that the Afghans disagree. They, by a large majority, support a continued fight.
“The world is changing and there is less and less place for a delusional vision of some kind benign western imperialism sorting out the problems of ‘backward peoples’ mainly by, lets be honest, killing them.”
I was simply pointing out that it is YOU who is patronising the Afghans by refusing to take account of their wishes in this fight. You may think that Afgahns are not worth fighting and dying for and that might be becuase they are ‘backward’ or just because they are foreign or live far away, but you should not assume others share your world view.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Andy, what eveidence do you have to support the view that the Afghans interviewed lied to the pollsters or that they did not trust them? I have seen not informed professional criticism of the way the poll was conducted (entirely by Afghans of all ethnic groups, as far as I know).
And given that you dismiss out of hand any polling of Afghan opinion, on what do you base your view that Afgahns are against the war? I suspect that you might be less sceptical of a poll that fund that a majority wanted US troops out.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
One of the poorest mations in the world is about to be abandoned again…yes, you can’t have ‘Empire lite’ where democracy is dropped off like cargo in the hope that it can assemble itself but it is
a shame that no-one really asks or mentions what the Afghani people want.The Russians,the British earlier and now,the Americans,the left,the right;all never ask this question but then again - they are powerless,raped,beaten,blown up,infiltrated,driven out,scapegoated but never asked.
What hubris it is to feel you already have the answer and that the Afghani people will probably
agree with you regardless because it’s for their own good.
Your article could have correctly identified the corrupt transnational drug deals that have gone on
to secure the opium crops exports.Ned Bush has had a grand old time in this dark corner.
Comment by Anonymous — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Um no, I think the Afghans have the right to self detirmination. I know you like the war because you are a cheer leader for it and seemingly cannot address the issue that it is being lost.
John, you cannot improve peoples lives by killing them and majority opinion in the UK recognises that. You need to catch up the propoganda war is over. Its now about what happens next.
Comment by Christy — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
“Um no, I think the Afghans have the right to self detirmination.”
Me too, and that is one reason why I think we should listen to their views when we determine policy on troop removals.
“I know you like the war because you are a cheer leader for it and seemingly cannot address the issue that it is being lost. ”
Who likes any war? And what do you mean by ‘lost’? And where is this ‘cheer leading’ taking place? So many questions.
“John, you cannot improve peoples lives by killing them”
No, but sometimes fighting is needed nonetheless. We are discussing here whether troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan. There are many arguments that they should,. I was simply pointing out that you cannot honsetly argue that the Afghans think they should when a clear majority think they should not. I realise the Little Englanders, the BNP etc think that no British blood should be spilled in the cause of a foreign people and many others on the right consider the cost to be prohibitive when the only gains will fall to non-British people, but I don’t think those are necessarily clinching arguments.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
“a shame that no-one really asks or mentions what the Afghani people want.”
Yes, they do, in polls. See my comments above. The Afghans, by a large majority, support US and NATO troops in their country.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
#18 - We’ll need a citation for that claim, especially when we’re seeing an insurgency which grows in effectiveness and determination week by week. No insurgency can survive without at least the tacit support of the native population. I’m sure many of those polled would provide the answer they thought most prudent under the circumstances.
Comment by John — 11 November, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Latest from STWC::
1) ANTI-WAR SOLDIER ARRESTED: PROTEST NOW
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, the soldier who faces desertion
charges for refusing to return to Afghanistan, has been
arrested and charged with five further offences for leading
Stop the War’s demonstration in London on 24 October and for
expressing his opposition to the media in defiance of orders.
The new charges carry a maximum of ten years imprisonment in
addition to the sentence of three to four years that Joe could
get if the desertion charge is upheld.
Joe’s mother, Sue Glenton, has spoken out against his arrest:
“You’ve got government ministers, army commanders and MPs
speaking every day in support of the war. What’s so scary
about a Lance Corporal having his say? My son is only speaking
out for what he thinks is right.”
Joe’s arrest and imprisonment are signs of panic by the
government and military commanders, faced with an ever growing
majority of the British public opposing the war and an
increasing number of prominent voices in the media calling for
the withdrawal of British troops.
A poll published in the Independent shows that only one in
five voters believes that Britain’s military presence in
Afghanistan is helping to protect the country from terrorism,
as Gordon Brown insists. The same poll shows that 48 percent
of voters think the war in Afghanistan increases the risk of
domestic terrorist attack.
Stop the War has launched a campaign to defend Joe Glenton and
his right to freedom of speech. (For updates see
http://www.stopwar.org.uk.)
A protest has been called outside the Ministry of Defence in
Whitehall on Thursday 12 November at 5pm and we list below
what you can do to support the only serving soldier who has so
far had the courage to stand up for what many in the army
believe; that this is a futile and unwinnable war.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
* EMERGENCY PROTEST AT THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
If you live in London, please try to join the protest on
Thursday 12 November, 5pm, at the Ministry of Defence,
Whitehall (opposite Downing Street)
FACEBOOK EVENT (Please circulate): http://bit.ly/2h9IOf
* WRITE TO DEFENCE SECRETARY BOB AINSWORTH
EMAIL: defencesecretary@mod.uk or ainsworthr@parliament.uk
WRITE: Secretary of State for Defence, Floor 5, Main Building,
Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB
FAX: 020 7218 6538
* COLLECT PETITION SIGNATURES
The Defend Joe Glenton petition can be downloaded here:
http://bit.ly/10gDKb
* WRITE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO JOE GLENTON
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton
Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC)
Berechurch Hall Camp
Colchester
Essex CO2 9NU
* EMAIL SUPPORT
defendjoeglenton@gmail.com
Comment by paddy garcia — 11 November, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
“We’ll need a citation for that claim, especially when we’re seeing an insurgency which grows in effectiveness and determination week by week. No insurgency can survive without at least the tacit support of the native population. I’m sure many of those polled would provide the answer they thought most prudent under the circumstances.”
The citation is the BBC 2009 poll:
Andy thinks the respondents were making up their answers but he cannot explain why they would make those ones up and not others or why they should not simply give their opinion.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 November, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Nice post Andy
Comment by steelcityred — 11 November, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
John your dancing in the dark here clutching your poll like a talisman against the night. The war is lost and that could not be the case if the majority of Afghans wanted the foreign armies to stay. The British public have the sense to see this and I suspect also wish to call an end to this adventure before an even more bloody military catastrophe occurs.
Nor is this indifference to the welfare of the Afghans the British public have been told by a British General on BBC News ‘ We are not there so girls can go to school’.
There are so many different official versions of why the war had to be fought the story no longer hangs together. People know when they’re being conned.
Come on. Afghanistan could have been slowly ‘liberalised’ by the simple expedient of buying the poppy crop for medicinal purposes at a fraction of the cost of the war. People know this.
The tide has gone out on your arguements. Its time to face reality and count the cost.
Comment by Christy — 11 November, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
I really hadn’t made the link between the poppies everyone is wearing and the profits from the opium poppies that are funding everyone in Afghanistan from elected unopposed Karzai to CIA black ops - and that’s just the crooks on “our” side.
I feel quite daft, because it’s obvious really.
I think it’s a pithy point that really could “go viral” in pubs and workplaces where political and anti-war conversation is not normally welcome. I think there is a mood in the general non-political public that could very easily become a dramatic backlash against this war, and the shit they are being fed daily by the papers (and round the clock by Sky).
At the moment the papers are trying desperately hard to channel this anger into the idea that “our boys” have been betrayed by poor equipment etc, in order to distract attention from the point that the betrayal is the fact that they are there in the first place.
Killing and being killed to prop up a election defrauding heroin dealer is something that even the most conventionally minded tabloid reader will agree is beyond the pale - and the poppy point may be just the thing to help make the penny drop.
Comment by Strategist — 11 November, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
Andy and his supporters on this thread take the view that, if the evidence contradicts our preconceptions, then it is our preconceptions that are correct, and the evidence must be wrong. The evidence must have been cooked up by imperialist agents to deceive the masses.
There is a long and disreputable history of this kind of wishful thinking on the left. It is also a characteristic of a great deal of religious thought. If the evidence shows that the earth goes round the sun, then the evidence must be wrong, because we know from our holy scriptures (Bible, Koran, collected works of Lenin etc) that the opposite is true.
As for the argument that “no insurgency can survive without at least the tacit support of the population” - this is nonsense, as shown by such appalling examples as the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda or the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, both of which created havoc despite being led by certifiable lunatics.
The British government, of course, does not have an obligation to remain militarily committed to Afghanistan just because that is what a majority of Afghans say they want. Any government has to take into consideration the opinion of its own population, and the feasiblity of winning the war.
The British and US governments are reluctant, essentially for ideological reasons, to take the one measure that might guarantee victory - which is to buy up the opium crop at a price better than that offered by the Taliban. The absurd “war on drugs” (a war which really can’t be won) is thus making it more difficult to achieve American and British military objectives.
Comment by paul fauvet — 12 November, 2009 @ 5:54 am
No Paul,
I do not have that attitude to evidence, for example I nenver thought that the Lancet’s argument about the number of war related deaths in Iraq was credible, even though it would have reinforced my political position.
But it would be naive in the extreme to assume that all information produced about a war zone is the untarnished truth.
The opinion polling evidence simply cannot be regarded as conclusive or convincing when other Afghans, like Malalai Joya, are telling us a completely different story.
Polling does not need to have been falsified to be unreliable. And we simply don’t know the methodolical presumptions.
For example, did the polling organisation assume, and pass on the assumption, that a war aim of NATO is to provide a stable unified Afghanistan? Did the polling organisation, for example, consider whether a preference expressed for Western military presence might mean lack of confidence in the alterntaive - the police and militia of Harmid karzai? In which case support for Western military contradicts the war aim of the West - to pass control to Karai’s forces.
In any event, Western military cannot acheive success without the warlords being disarmed, and they cannot do that, because half of them are their allies.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 9:39 am
“But it would be naive in the extreme to assume that all information produced about a war zone is the untarnished truth.”
Of course that is true Andy, but the opinion polls are the only information we have about Afghan popular opinion and the science of polling is well understood. The pollsters have explained their methodology and the margin for error, if you have information about why these are wrong you should give it. But even if you choose, at random, to assign a higher margin of error, +/- 10%, say, you are still left with a large majority supporting the invasion and the US troops on any reading of the data.
“The opinion polling evidence simply cannot be regarded as conclusive or convincing when other Afghans, like Malalai Joya, are telling us a completely different story.”
Reject a poll on the basis of a single example of an alternative opinion? But that is daft. We know that a significant sector of Afghan popular opinion shares Joya’s views, because the polls reflects tham. But a large majority do not share them according to all the available evidence.
“Polling does not need to have been falsified to be unreliable. And we simply don’t know the methodolical presumptions.”
We do, they are public and the pollsters are well-established and with a good reputation and they are working for demanding clients with good reputations for honest reporting that they need to defend.
“For example, did the polling organisation assume, and pass on the assumption, that a war aim of NATO is to provide a stable unified Afghanistan?”
The questions are all in the public domain, take a look. I would say that the questions are all fair and not loaded, as you would expect from professional pollsters. Nor are the clients organisations that are likely to want a distorted result.
“Did the polling organisation, for example, consider whether a preference expressed for Western military presence might mean lack of confidence in the alterntaive - the police and militia of Harmid karzai?”
No, we can speculate on that but you must first concede that contra your previously expressed view a majority of the Afgahn population do not wish US or NATO troops to leave. However, the poll did shopw a huge support for Karzai.
“In any event, Western military cannot acheive success without the warlords being disarmed, and they cannot do that, because half of them are their allies.”
That may or may not be true, but it is changing the subject. To withdraw from Afhghanistan now would not be pop[ular with Afghanis. You may still wish to do it, but you must accept, on the available evidence, that the Afghan people are by a large majority on the NATO side and not yours.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 9:52 am
“John your dancing in the dark here clutching your poll like a talisman against the night. The war is lost and that could not be the case if the majority of Afghans wanted the foreign armies to stay.”
Christy, the war is on-going. You may think it will be lost and you may be right. But you are deluded if you think wars are always and only won with the support of the local population. Surely the most cursory glance at history would disabuse you of that romantic idea?
“Nor is this indifference to the welfare of the Afghans the British public have been told by a British General on BBC News ‘ We are not there so girls can go to school’.”
I am always amused by the awed respect that some sections of the left have for pronouncements by military commanders. I have worked with the army, though, and tend to be a little more sceptical. If a senior soldier tells you about weaponry and battle posiitions, pay attention. When he starts banging on about social policy and politics, it is usually time to head for the bar.
“People know when they’re being conned.”
Christy, you are a true romantic.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 10:00 am
I see so no answers but I’m a romantic? John I have known soldiers of all ranks all my life putting on a uniform does not ossify the brain. The bold General was making a heartfelt plea for the politicians to come up with a credible story line to justify the war. They get exasperated you see being used to command and control.
In asymetric warfare the inferior force loses if it does not have the support of the population. Its that simple. You should have asked about it when you were hanging about the barracks.
Honestly John working class people do know when they are being conned. They are not stupid.
Comment by Christy — 12 November, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Well, I don’t specifically know what poll JOhn Meredith is referring to, but this one by the Asia Foundation:
http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2009.pdf
showed that 100 more polling points were inaccessible in 2009 compared to 2008 due to the spreading insurgency, and that 56% of Afghans support the armed insurgency, 22% very strongly support it, and 34% sympathise with it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 11:36 am
I think I have found the poll JOhn meredtith is referring to, from BBC/ABC/ARD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/02_february/09/afghanistan.shtml
This is what is actually says:
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
I still think that polling is problematic, especially goven the Asia Foundation’s evidence of difficulty in even reaching some villages due to the security situation.
BBBC quotes 25% supporting military attacks in foreign forces, and Asia Foundation says 22% support military action.
But it certainly depends upon the extact question, becasue while John medith interrets this as meaning 75% oppose attacks, the Asia Foundation poll suggests that a majority of the population have their sympathy with the insurgency.
This makes sense, that more people feel on the same side as the insurgents then specifically support military action.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Andy, what the poll says is what I described, the stuff you have copied is a bit of editorial. Whichever way you slice it and despite the many things that can be said about it, the poll shows a large majority in support of a continued US/NATO military presence in Afghanistan. I don’t think you now dispute this, do you?
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
“BBBC quotes 25% supporting military attacks in foreign forces, and Asia Foundation says 22% support military action.”
So two independent polls find almost the same results with the difference within the margin of error predicted? That should increase our confidence in the polls, shouldn’t it?
“But it certainly depends upon the extact question, becasue while John medith interrets this as meaning 75% oppose attacks, the Asia Foundation poll suggests that a majority of the population have their sympathy with the insurgency.”
No, I am not interpreting. 75% of repondents said that they wanted US or NATO troops to stay for at least the next 6 months. 64% said in answer to a direct question that they thought attacks on NATO troops are unjustified. A huge majority (I think 80% plus) say there should be no negotiation with the insurgency until they have abaondoned all military activity. So your interpretation looks a bit cockeyed to me, more like wishful thinking. I think you are conceding, though (tell me if I am wrong) that my original point, that the Afghans by a large majority do not want NATO troops to withdraw, is correct?
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
JOhn
The poll from Asia Foundation shows a majority of Afghans - 56% - support military action against the Karzai government and foreign troops.
Having read their methodology both polls were conducted by interview and then recorded by questionaire.
If you have ever studied the topic of polling you will know that it is very difficult to frame questions to accurately capture ambiguous or contradictory feelings. If we are to believe both polls, a majority of Afghans support foreign troops remaining, but a majority also support there being military attacks upon those foreign troops; therefore there must be overlap between these two opinions.
Such a contradiction is presumably a reflection of the fact that few Afghans see any way forward out of the mess, they don’t beleive NATO withdrawl will help, but they don’t think NATO should be there either.
What both polls show is growing pessimism that a good outcome is achieveble through the presence of foreign troops; and a very large minority very strongly supportive of military action against NATO.
It is also worth mentioning that the British are considerably less popular than th Americans according to the BBC poll.
It is therefore entirely justifiable to say - on balance - that the Afghans want us gone.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
#34
“A huge majority (I think 80% plus) say there should be no negotiation with the insurgency until they have abaondoned all military activity. “
No the Asia Foundation poll (of 8000 people btw) says the exact opposite.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
“The poll from Asia Foundation shows a majority of Afghans - 56% - support military action against the Karzai government and foreign troops.”
No it doesn’t, it shows a majority having at least ‘a little’ sympathy for the motivations of armed groups. This is an important finding but not at all what you want it to be. We need to read it in the context of the high level of confidence expressed for the Afghan army and the very high level of support for continued NATO presence in the country. Yoiu are suggesting that a majority want NATO troops to stay so that they can keep being attacked? Surely the poiunt of attacks is to drive them out?
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
The great thing about detailed polls is that you can always find statistics in them to support whatever contention you want to make. (Data are like potatoes - you have to clean them before you cook them.)
I want to contend that, in the main, the Afghan people want peace and reconciliation. After all, NATO forces will leave eventually, but the different Afghan factions will remain. Sure enough, question 64a of the Asia Foundation survey reads as follows:
Do you strongly approve, approve somewhat, disapprove somewhat or strongly
disapprove of the Afghan Government’s reconciliation efforts and negotiations
with armed Anti-Government elements?
(%)
Strongly approve 28
Approve somewhat 43
Disapprove somewhat 15
Strongly disapprove 10
Refused (volunteered only) 1
Don’t know (volunteered only) 4
In other words, the whole NATO agenda of “defeating” the “insurgency” runs counter to the Afghans’ desire for peace and reconciliation - which is something they will have to effect, sooner or later. The alternative is another three decades of civil war.
Comment by Francis King — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
“What both polls show is growing pessimism that a good outcome is achieveble through the presence of foreign troops; and a very large minority very strongly supportive of military action against NATO.”
Really? From the Asia Foundation poll:
In 2009, 42 percent of respondents say that the country is moving in the right direction.
This figure is higher than in 2008 (38%). Similarly, 29 percent feel that the
country is moving in the wrong direction compared to 32 percent in 2008, signaling
a check on the trend of declining optimism that had been evident since 2006.
• The main reason for optimism continues to be good security which has been mentioned by an increasing proportion of respondents each year, from 31 percent in
2006 to 44 percent in 2009. More respondents in 2009 also mention reconstruction
and rebuilding (36%) and opening of schools for girls (21%) as reasons for optimism
than in previous years.
Of course there is still a lot of pessimism too, but how you can say ‘It is therefore entirely justifiable to say - on balance - that the Afghans want us gone.’ when a large majority say exactly the opposite when asked is beyond me.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Look JOhn
You have been caught with your pants down, arguing that polls give a clear cut support for the current NATO military occupation, when the totality of the polling evidence when examined is much more complicated, and contradictory.
You don’t seem t have grasped the nature of the insurgency, which is that much of it is localised and uncoordinated. So there is no contradiction in someone supporting military action agsint foreign troops in their own area, but on overall balance thinking that the foreign ttroops should remain in Afghanstan. Also how do we interprte the faith expressed in the Afghan army, high approval ratings, but at the same time a majority think they are incompetent and corrupt! Is this faith in the Afghan army because they are the only option people can see to NATO or the Taliban?
Afghanistan is a very dangerious and unstable place, if you have read any field work you will know that there is effectively no law and order in large parts of the country. The fact that the Asia Foundation reported a rise in security is based upon a drop in the number of people who prersonaly had expereined violence, which is a good thing, but they also reported an increase in the number of parts of the cuntry it was no longer possible to reach due to secrity fears.
Not only shoud we be cautious about any polling informnation accurately reflecting opinion in such a volatile and insecure situation, but the opinions expressed are contradictory. This reflects the fact that people can’t see viable alternatives.
What is interesting is that what optimism there was in the polls was predicated upon the idea that there would be fair elections this year. Which did not happen. The Asia Foundation poll also shows a year on year decline in support for equal rights.
What both polls show is that the NATO strategy is failing, and that there is insufficient foundation there for a NATO victory.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
There is often a certain amount of cognitive disssonance evident in polls. The BBC poll asked:
Q21. Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not enter into these negotiations?
Negotiate a settlement
64
Continue to fight Taliban
25
No opinion
11
Q22. Do you think the government should negotiate only if the Taliban first stop fighting, or negotiate even as fighting continues?
Negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting
71
Negotiate even as fighting continues
29
No opinion
11
But the Asia Foundation question was slightly different and asked about on-going negotiations. The only think that is quite clear is that they want the Taliban to stop fighting:
Q19. Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?
Taliban
27
Al Qaeda/foreign jihadis
22
U.S./American forces
12
Bush/U.S. government/America
6
Local commanders/warlords
6
Drug traffickers
5
Afghan government/Karzai
12
Afghan forces
3
NATO/ISAF forces
3
Other
3
-
No opinion
1
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
“You have been caught with your pants down, arguing that polls give a clear cut support for the current NATO military occupation, when the totality of the polling evidence when examined is much more complicated, and contradictory.”
Andy, you have claimed that Afghans want NATO troops out of the country, I have shown you unabiguous evidence that this is not true and you have offered nothing to support your position. The Asia Foundation poll did not ask the question.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
#41
“There is often a certain amount of cognitive dissonance evident in polls. “
EXACTLY.
And your poll answers there show 36% thinking the violence is the fault of NATO/Karzai, and 49% showing they blame the Taliban/Al Qaeda.
And all of history tells us that where 22% support armed actions, and a further 34% sympathise with their aims, then there is not going to be an end to the fighting. Now I am sure that most people want the fighting to stop, but it is not true that everyone wants it to be the insurgency who stops.
There is a very shallow basis of support for continued NATO presence in Afghanistan, and a determined and large minority engaged in warfare agaonst them.
But for many Afghans the issue is that they are ruled by warlords anyway, so unless you ask whether or not the Karzai government and NATO even holds sway over the part of the country where they live, yu haven’t got a realistic impression.
And on this whole volatile, unstable house of cards, it is impossible to build a case that there is such a pressing demand from the Afghans for British troops to be there that it is worth the cost.
It is also reasonable to ask, that whatever people say they want, what is acheievable? If we look at acheivable eventual outcomes, then NATO is never going to succeed
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
And your poll answers there show 36% thinking the violence is the fault of NATO/Karzai, and 49% showing they blame the Taliban/Al Qaeda.
“And all of history tells us that where 22% support armed actions, and a further 34% sympathise with their aims,”
Andy, as you well know, the poll does not show that. The poll only showed those who have at least #’a little’ sympathy for the MOTIVATIONS of the iunsurgency, not their aims or methods.
“then there is not going to be an end to the fighting. Now I am sure that most people want the fighting to stop, but it is not true that everyone wants it to the the insurgency who stops.”
Maybe, but the very large majority (70+%)who want NATO troops to stay and the minority who support the insurgency attacks on them (+/-25%) is suggestive at the least.
“There is a very shallow basis of support for continued NATO presence in Afghanistan, and a determined and large minority engaged in warfare agaonst them.2
You may be right that it is shallow, nonetheless we know that it is wide and that a large majority of the population whant NATO troops to stay.
“But for many Afghans the issue is that they are ruled by warlords anyway, so unless you ask whether or not the Karzai government and NATO even holds sway over the part of the country where they live, yu haven’t got a realistic impression.2
Maybe, but you know what you know: they want NATO to stay.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
“And your poll answers there show 36% thinking the violence is the fault of NATO/Karzai, and 49% showing they blame the Taliban/Al Qaeda”
By that way, that is 15%, not 36% who think the violnce is due to either NATO or Karzai. But you are right about the 49% who blame the Tailban or foreign juhadis.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
No it is 36% if you include in the NATO/Karzai category those who blame George Bush, Afghan army and police. Which you obviously should.
What si also not weighted here is the credibility of people’s perception, for example if they live in an area where there is good security and no insuregency, they are basing heir judgement on the radio news from kabul; if you are in Helmand or Kandahar, then the pollers didn’t even get to you to ask the question.
The polling evidence is a snapshot based upon interpretation of the current situation ( or more accurately the situation before the election), and has all sorts of question marks over it from the outset.
The question of shallowness or depth of how stringly an opinion is held makes a big differnce. Someone may want NATO troops to stay enoigh to answer es to a questionanire, someone else may want NATO trroops to leave so much that they are prepared to infiltrate the Afghan police, and mow down five sqaddies. Now in terms of abstract democrcay, both people have an opinion, but in terms of the social effectiveness, they are not the same.
It is simply not true that the plling shows a ringing endorsement of NATO staying in the country from the Afghan people. Given that British canadian and US troops are dying at a rate some two or three times that the Russians were being killed, it is legitimate to question whether the Afghan pople really want our soldiers there.
It only shows what people answered to a questionaire 0 and even then the results are highly cocntradictory - based upon the current perception of the volatile situation.
So it is interesting,and we can debate it, but the hard social reality is that there is mass resistance to NATO, and Afghans want us gone.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
#45 John Meredith
You’re playing semantic games. The figure is 36%.
U.S./American forces
12
+
Bush/U.S. government/America
6
+
Afghan government/Karzai
12
+
Afghan forces
3
+
NATO/ISAF forces
3
= 36%
Comment by Calvin — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
“It is simply not true that the plling shows a ringing endorsement of NATO staying in the country from the Afghan people.”
I didn’t say it did. I made no stronger claim than that it shows a large majority in favour of a continuing NATO presence in the country, and that is unambiguously true.
“Given that British canadian and US troops are dying at a rate some two or three times that the Russians were being killed, it is legitimate to question whether the Afghan pople really want our soldiers there.”
It is legitimate and we are asking. They are saying that they do want them there. A large majority are, at any rate.
“It only shows what people answered to a questionaire 0 and even then the results are highly cocntradictory - based upon the current perception of the volatile situation.”
It is the only data we have. The resuklts are not contradictory, though. As you showed, they are replicated in different polls.
“So it is interesting,and we can debate it, but the hard social reality is that there is mass resistance to NATO, and Afghans want us gone.”
The hard social reality is that all the actual data we have suggests that support for the resistance is a large majority of 25% at most but the majority of Afghans want us there. I am amazed you will not accept this. We have the data, you wish it were difeferent, but there it is.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Another problem with opinion polls is that the options they present cannot all be equally realistic. Ideally, negotiations take place between parties who are not fighting and killing each other (that 71% in question 22). But that is hardly likely to happen, is it? Not unless NATO actually does manage to crush the insurgency completely, which seems improbable, to put it mildly.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what the polls say. The question which interests me is quite different: how can the civil war be ended and peace be established in Afghanistan? And I cannot see any plausible scenarios for that which don’t involve the withdrawal of foreign forces.
Comment by Francis King — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Calvin, it wouold only be accurate to claim that 36% believe that the violence is caused by either U.S./American forces or Bush/U.S. government/America or Afghan government/Karzai or Afghan forces or NATO/ISAF forces [although this is double counting because US forces are NATO forces so the maximum figure 33%].
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
#50 John Meredith
No, unless respondents were allowed to tick two boxes the figure is 36%. You’re just trying to muddy the waters.
36% blame the US and Afghan governments and the armies under their control.
Comment by Calvin — 12 November, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
36% blame the US and Afghan governments and the armies under their control.
It is as I expressed it, 36% in total blame one or other of those things, either the Afghan government or the armies under their control, for example. It is not very useful to aggregate dissimilar things, especially whern it is done to disguise the very different quantities making up the aggregate. And US trooops are a sub-set of NATO troops so aggreagting those figures is misleading (slight problem in the question construction, actually).
But that is just an intersting methodological point, the main point about clear popular support for NATO troops in Afghanistan is not affected.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Personally I’m a ittle bit sceptical about the reliabiliy of opinion polls in a country in the middle of a chaotic war and under foreign occupation.
I would like to know the conditions under which they were carried out including by whom and where, before I chose to tke the results particularly seriously.
I tend in any event to sympathise with Francis King’s view.
Comment by Armchair — 12 November, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
“I would like to know the conditions under which they were carried out including by whom and where, before I chose to tke the results particularly seriously.”
This information is easily found. The poll from the Asia Foundation is really interesting (more interstinhg questions than the BBC poll in my opinion)and explains the difficulties in some detail. The very high margin of error (=/- 2.5%) reflects the problems, I think.
But there is no reason to think that the poll is out by 25% or more so it is clear that a majority supports NATO troops, no matter how sceptical you choose to be. If you simply reject all poll data, you need to explain what you base your views on. You may just think ‘withdraw and let the Afghans go hang’ and it is a fair enough position, but I don’t think you should be allowed to fool yourself that you are acting in accord with Afgan popular opinion, that is all.
Comment by John Meredith — 12 November, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
John a number of people have pointed out the problems with this poll. You seem to think a poll in war torn Afganistan is like a poll in Kennsington High Street - its not. Now would you stake your life on this? And if not why do you expect others to do so?
Comment by Christy — 12 November, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Christy, the poll data is the only data we have and we have no reason to think it unreliable beyond the stated margin of error. If you like, apply a much higher margin of error, you still get a large majority supoporting NATO troops.
Comment by John Meredith — 13 November, 2009 @ 9:30 am
John, its a poll carried out on behalf of an occupying power in a warzone. No idea if you have ever done this sort of work but believe me most people who have would see problems with that. You give almost totemic signigicance as it enables you to support the continuing slaughter.
Comment by Christy — 13 November, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
People sometimes mislead pollsters even in bourgeois democracies. In an occupied country with armed soldiers and police everywhere and bombs going off, people will be very circumspect about what they say to someone who approaches them with a clipboard, looks like some kind of official and asks them what they think.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 13 November, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
“John, its a poll carried out on behalf of an occupying power in a warzone. No idea if you have ever done this sort of work but believe me most people who have would see problems with that. You give almost totemic signigicance as it enables you to support the continuing slaughter.”
Yes I have experience in this kind of work and I can see nothing in the methodology to give concern. If you can, I think you should point it out. I don’t give any special significance to the results (although they are very interesting), I juts point out that those who claim Afghans want NATO troops to leave are wrong.
“People sometimes mislead pollsters even in bourgeois democracies. In an occupied country with armed soldiers and police everywhere and bombs going off, people will be very circumspect about what they say to someone who approaches them with a clipboard”
And there is a margin of error, of course.. But the results show a strong willingness to express a range of views. If the kind of circumspection you predict were apparant it would show as a higher than average ‘don’t know’ return or (even more likely) a simple refusal to take part.
Comment by John Meredith — 13 November, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Except a “don’t know” or refusal to express an opinion may itself be treated as suspect. In a fear-ridden atmosphere, you might be more likely to tell the interviewer what you think he/she wants to hear.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 13 November, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Very naive views expressed here. The US presence in Afghanistan is for geostrategic reasons - there are land borders with China, Iran, former USSR territories, India and Pakistan. There is a lucrative heroin crop that funds extensive covert operations by the US - read Sibel Edmonds and General Guls depositions and read Brzezinski - back in charge under Obama - for the political and military strategy since the 1970s. The US has trained and armed thousands of “jihadists” and now sends Jundullah over the border to attack Iran.
Wake up.
Comment by C Flower — 14 November, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Very naive views expressed here. The US presence in Afghanistan is for geostrategic reasons - there are land borders with China, Iran, former USSR territories, India and Pakistan. There is a lucrative heroin crop that funds extensive covert operations by the US - read Sibel Edmonds and General Guls depositions and read Brzezinski - back in charge under Obama - for the political and military strategy since the 1970s. The US has trained and armed thousands of “jihadists” and now sends Jundullah over the border to attack Iran.
Comment by C Flower — 14 November, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8448930.stm
Comment by Jeremy Stangroom — 11 January, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Thanks Jeremy !
See here :
http://moremedianonsense.blogspot.com/2010/01/better-news-from-afghanistan-new-bbc.html
Anyone any idea what Salman Yaqoob thinks of this good news ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 11 January, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Anyone any idea why we should take any opinion polls from a war zone remotely seriously?
Comment by boilermaker — 11 January, 2010 @ 12:25 pm
Do you have any idea what is going on in Afghanistan?
Since 2001 the Warlords, particularly General Dostum and Ismail Khan have restablished their emirates in the North and West of the country, and control large swathes of the country, except now with the status as allies of NATO and politically “legitimised” by elections. In these areas the Kabul government have no sway, and NATO itself takes a subaltern role to their warlord allies.
So to understand the role of NATO forces is quite complicated, in so far as they prop up warlords in large parts of the country, while fighting the neo-Taliban in other parts of the country.
OPinion polls taken in such cirscumstances are no more relaibale than asking residents of East London during the rule of the Kray brothers whether they supported the gang being arrested.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 January, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Oh right then Andy just ignore the facts. Do you have any better evidence of what is going in Afghani public opinion ? Has George Galloway done a secret poll ?
To be clear - do you completely reject the findings of this poll ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 11 January, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
I don’t “totally reject” the poll; it is however of limited significance/
For a lasting peace in Afghanistan, then NATO needs to be planning for a peace settlment, and their own warlord allies are actually more problematic to a stable unified government than the neo-Taliban.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 January, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
Andy, are you saying they should have overthrown all the warlords in 2001? It would have taken about 2 to 300 thousand troops and a long and bloody occupation. It could have been done but I doubt you would have supported Paul Bremer type figures running most of the country for several years whilst institutions were set up with wholly new and unrecognised Afghan figures with no tribal connections.
And besides, some of the warlords have been beneficial. Dostrum, for instance, is one of the great successes in post Taliban Afghanistan - he’s a completely reformed characher who has actually taken people with him and helped educate tribal groups on the notion of democracy, the seperation between clan and police, and supporting the wider state. So it’s a far more complex picture.
Comment by Ed D — 11 January, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
#69
The warlords hardly existed in 2001. They had either already lost or were were losing a war to the Taliban FFS, indeed they mainly fell like a house of cards to the Taliban.
there was what has been described as peace cycle at that time, as the political economy of warlordism was collapsing; and the military charisma that the warlords relied upon had become progressivle exhausted.
What should have happened was no invasion, and some engagement directed at the Taliban making it clear that normalisation of international relations and trade required cleaning up their act.
You are very ignorant in your discussion of Dostum, in so far as he has a relationship with the central state then he will accomodate with it; but if NATO withdraw and leave Dostum armed, then he will have no incentive to continue propping up the central state. The trappings of “democracy” in his territories are about legitimiaing his rule. So he will promote “democracy” as long as it legitimises him, but effectively Norther Afghanistan is a one party state, and democracy means turning out the civilian population to all vote for Dostum to give him greater authority and bargaining power in Kabul..
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 January, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
“What should have happened was no invasion, and some engagement directed at the Taliban making it clear that normalisation of international relations and trade required cleaning up their act.”
It’s interesting, though, that a clear majority of Afghans disagree with you about that, isn’t it?
Comment by John Meredith — 11 January, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
“Dostrum, for instance, is one of the great successes in post Taliban Afghanistan”.
Dostum, actually. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. He’s only just returned to Afghanistan after exile in Turkey and is only there at all because Karzai needed his support to fix the election.
Completely reformed character? The same one that been going round exhuming all the bodies of his war crimes victims?
Comment by Mike — 11 January, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
“The warlords hardly existed in 2001. They had either already lost or were were losing a war to the Taliban FFS, indeed they mainly fell like a house of cards to the Taliban.”
I don’t understand your argument. The was a civil war going on - the “warlords” and the northern alliance controlling the north after the Taliban had overrun some of their areas and pushed them up to the top of the country. But as you saw when the Taliban fled, the tribal groups were still loyal to their warlord leaders and were deeply inbeded in society. To have removed them would have taken a huge occupation force with Paul Bremer type figures running much of the country. Basically the Iraq model.
Now, I agree with you that in an idea world this would have been preferable. Yes perhaps hundreds of thousands of people would have died and there would have been intense resistance from a far larger part of the country, but it could well have been worth it in the long term. But nevertheless what happened instead, where the warlords were accommodated and signed up to help bring their people along with the new model of government, is the least worst option. We should never foget that ending the civil war and removing the hated Taliban has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and a democratic form of government has been introduced, however flawed. The Afghans supported this and I agree with them.
Comment by Ed D — 11 January, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
Dostum, actually. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. He’s only just returned to Afghanistan after exile in Turkey and is only there at all because Karzai needed his support to fix the election.
Completely reformed character? The same one that been going round exhuming all the bodies of his war crimes victims?
No, Dostum has been on balance a force for good in post Taliban Afghanistan. No doubt about it. The police force in his areas are the least corrupt in the country. He also very influenctial in teaching people on allowing candidates to speak freely.
This term “warlord” is simplistic. There are Taliban warlords too. They’re bascially tribal chiefs in what is of course a very feudal country. There is no magic way of getting rid of them.
Comment by Ed D — 11 January, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
#73
“I don’t understand your argument. ”
i suggest you read the serious academic research by Antonio Giustozzi, for example his recent book “Empires of Mud”, that is based upon years of painstaking field resreach in Afghanistan itself.
#74
“This term “warlord” is simplistic. There are Taliban warlords too. ”
largely no. The Taliban were never a warlord based social phenomenon. Warlords are not tribal chiefs, they are the leaders of a permanent military caste that has arisen in Afghanistan, and their authority is through a combination of military charisma and patronage, and their political ecnomy is basically parasitic. Apart from anything else, the taliban arose in Southern Afghanistan where warlordism never really took root.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 January, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
I don’t “totally reject” the poll; it is however of limited significance
I strongly object to the suggestion that the views of Afghans are of limited significance. I think they are in fact highly significant.
Comment by Mr Danger — 11 January, 2010 @ 6:16 pm