Last month I was complaining about Michael Walzer’s lazy aside about the important question of public opinion in Afghanistan about a continued U.S. presence. So it’s worth noting that a poll (via Matthew Yglesias) conducted in the country very recently suggests that support is actually fairly high (68%) for a continued U.S. presence, giving some support to Walzer’s position.
I’ve been very, very bleak about the prospects for success (whatever that means, exactly, which is part of the problem) in Afghanistan, and although it hardly settles the question, it’s good to know that a fair number of Afghans don’t agree with me on the issue. They are, after all, considerably better acquainted with what’s happening in their country than I am. Since I’m not going to get my way about leaving the country, I’m always happy to find evidence that I’m mistaken to think staying is futile.
As Yglesias points out, the polls show a fairly sharp division between the Pushtun belt in the South of the country and the rest of the country on the issue of a continued military presence. I gather this is at least in part because the US and coalition forces are widely perceived in the country as a bulwark against Pashtun hegemony, and supported or rejected on that basis. I think there’s some truth to the perception, actually. Unfortunately, the U.S. and its allies are stuck in the middle of some pretty sharply conflicting visions of the country’s future, and I’m not sure they have any more idea how to resolve them than I do.
DC | 14-Jan-10 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Yglesias concludes from the disparity in opinion between the Pashtun south and the rest of the country that the US should focus its efforts where the population wants it. This would seem to conflict sharply with the whole justification of the war as a way to eliminate safe havens for terrorists. I also wonder whether the fact that the US presence is more popular in one part of the country means that the people there would like the US to focus its efforts there. Maybe the rest of Afghanistan’s position is “Yes, I’m all for the Americans fighting those Pashtun bastards down south”.
Don’t know if you saw Rory Stewart’s piece in the NYRB: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23562
Surprisingly sympathetic to the Obama surge, though Stewart is hoping to be a minister in a Tory government in a few months time, which could temper his scepticism.
Chris | 14-Jan-10 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
Thanks for that link, DC. Hadn’t gotten to that piece yet.
Yeah, I don’t think focusing on areas where the US is more popular is going to cut it, for the reason you give, and also just because the South really needs to come around for the country to recover. Remember that the South has dominated the country for a couple hundred years.
DC | 16-Jan-10 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
“Remember that the South has dominated the country for a couple hundred years.”
It’s strange, given how often the increase in troops in Afghanistan is compared to the Iraqi “surge”, and given also how there’s plenty of talk about conciliating “moderate” Taliban/Pashtun elements, how rarely the comparison is explicitly drawn between the once-dominant Sunnis in Iraq and the once-dominant Pashtuns in Afghanistan.
Not saying such a comparison is likely to help anyone very much, but there is a structural similarity there.
Chris | 16-Jan-10 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
There is some similarity there, actually. I’m not sure how far I’d push it, but that’s a good point.