It was difficult not to notice something of a contrast in the presentation of some recent reporting of Afghan public opinion. According to a poll referenced by Gabriel Carlyle, writing in Peace News:

“74% supported the idea of negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

“54% also supported the idea of a coalition government between the Taliban and Western-backed president Hamid Karzai.

“52% agreed that all foreign troops should withdraw within five years (25% preferred one year).”

According to Andrew Anthony on the other hand, writing on Comment Is Free:

“only 14% of Afghans want foreign troops to go immediately, while 43% wanted troops to remain “as long as it takes”.”

Interestingly, both conclusions are derived from the same set of figures, which are available here. Below are the relevant tables:

The conclusion seems fairly clear: the aggregate level of Afghan opinion opposed to troops staying beyond three to five years is 52%, as Carlyle points out. The rational policy implication would be to set a timetable for withdrawal within five years, at the very most (though equally to remain for at least three years).

Much of Anthony’s piece is the usual Eustonian nonsense, and I’ve had an illuminating exchange with him on some of it on comment is free (which you can find under his article). The main thrust of it, however, is a response to Seumas Milne, who, we are told, believes that “[t]he only role for non-Muslims in this debate is to urge the government to remove British troops”.

The article to which he links doesn’t actually propound this opinion, so to clarify that we have to look elsewhere. Milne wrote a Guardian article focusing specifically on Afghanistan in August, so let’s start there. He writes that “[f]or Afghans, six years after they were supposed to have been liberated, life is getting worse.” This, certainly, is not in alignment with what the figures show – a slender majority believe things are going in the right direction; women are better off than in 2002; as are Afghans in general.

On negotiation with the Taliban, however, Milne has this to say:

“Britain is now fighting its fourth war in Afghanistan in 170 years, and might have learned by now that you cannot impose a government from outside against a people’s will. Earlier this summer the Afghan senate called for a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops and negotiations with the Taliban, as did the Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, this month. There will be no peace or stability in Afghanistan while foreign troops remain, and a wider settlement will surely have to include the Taliban …”

Actual NATO policy is not moving in this direction – indeed quite the opposite. Milne, referring to the escalation of British military activity in the country (of which we witnessed more recently), writes:

“the plan is to increase British troop numbers from the current 7,000, and ministers, commanders and officials have been hammering home the message all summer that Britain is in Afghanistan, as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, insisted, for the long haul.

““We should be thinking in terms of decades,” the British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, declared; Brigadier John Lorimer, British commander in Helmand province, thought the military occupation might last more than Northern Ireland’s 38 years; and the defence secretary, Des Browne, last week confirmed that the government had made a “long-term commitment” to stay in Afghanistan to prevent it reverting to a terrorist training ground. Even allowing for the Brown government’s need for political cover if it is indeed to run down its forces in Iraq, that all amounts to a pretty clear policy of indefinite occupation - one on which it has not thought necessary to consult the British people, let alone the Afghans.”

Decades? 38 years? Long haul? Long-term commitment? The contempt for Afghan public opinion could hardly be clearer. What about their belief in negotiating with the Taliban? Well, that’s not happening either, at least if Gordon Brown has anything to do with it:

“He insisted his aim was “to defeat the insurgency by eliminating their leadership. I make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiation with these people.””

It is certainly tempting to try and take the reins out of our government’s hands by demanding a full and immediate exit from the country – but, if it came down to a straight choice between a full and immediate withdrawal and a continued presence, the former would have to be considered a somewhat amoral, and certainly undemocratic, position to support, given the state of Afghan public opinion. Another possibility, of course, is replacing our troops with a UN force for the country, to which Britain and others should contribute logistical, financial and other support. None of the Afghan population has been quizzed on such a subject, so it is currently impossible to know whether they would support it (which is the major problem with such polls, of course – you only get answers to the questions you bother to ask). Given our country’s continuing defiance of Afghan popular will, however, it might well be a preferable option. Besides this, evidently we should most certainly be pressing for a deal with the Taliban rather than continued escalation and bloodshed.

UPDATE: I contacted Keith Neuman of Environics a little while ago to see if he could give any further information on the correlation (or otherwise) between Afghans’ regarding the question of when troops leave as important and support for their presence. Here’s his breakdown of the figures (many thanks to Neuman for providing this):

“First, there is a strong relationship between opinion as to whether the presence of foreign troops has been a “good thing” or a “bad thing” in respondents’ local area, on the one hand, and opinion on how long foreign troops should stay. More than half (55%) of those who say the presence has been a “good thing” for their local area say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while 3 percent say they should “leave right away”. By comparison, only one in five (19%) who say the presence has been a “bad thing” for their local area say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while four in ten (42%) say they should “leave right away”. The relationship is somewhat stronger for the question of whether foreign troops have been a good thing or a bad thing for the country (as opposed to local area). More than half (54%) of those who say the presence has been a “good thing” for the country say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while 2 percent say they should “leave right away”. By comparison, only one in ten (10%) who say the presence has been a “bad thing” say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while six in ten (58%) say they should “leave right away”.

“There is also a strong relationship between opinion on the question of whether the presence of foreign troops has been a “good thing” or a “bad thing” in respondents’ local area, on the one hand, and the importance placed on the question of when troops leave. Eight in ten (80%) who say that the foreign troop presence has been a “good thing” for their local area say that their opinion on the timing of troop withdrawals “matters a great deal”, compared to four in ten (39%) among those who say that the troop presence has been a “bad thing”. The results are similar for the issue of whether the presence of foreign troops has been good for the country. Eight in ten (78%) who say that the foreign troop presence has been a “good thing” for the country say that their opinion on troop withdrawals “matters a great deal”, compared to one half (49%) among those who say that the troop presence has been a “bad thing” for the country.”

(Correspondence, 7 January 2008)