Support in U.S. for Afghan War Drops Sharply, Poll Finds

After a series of violent episodes and setbacks, support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped sharply among both Republicans and Democrats in recent months as increasing numbers of Americans say that the United States should not be involved in the fighting there, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that more than two-thirds of those surveyed — 69 percent – think that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. That number is a significant increase from just four months ago, when 53 percent said that Americans should no longer be fighting in the decade-old conflict.

  There were even sharper increases when respondents were asked for their impressions on the state of the war. The poll found that 68 percent thought the fighting was going “somewhat badly” or “very badly,’’ compared with 42 percent who had those impressions in November 2011.  

election politics behind the early withdrawal

The early withdrawal of US and French troops from Afghanistan is contributing to the claim Taliban are making. there argument has been the west lacks a coherent and comprehensive value system. the values such as human rights are just hoax and has no real impact on Afghan lives. which has proven true, the establishment of democracy and human rights costing Westerners hundereds of bilions of dollars have not made Afghanistan a more just place than any other least developed country. yet another blow is the withdrawal of US troops before the schedule to the credibility of any moderation in Afghan society. this is marked as another  betrayal of  Afghans especially those attempting harder. This hurried withdrawal will not give the Western world the isolationist peace of mind it craves, not just because abandoning these people to the Islamist butchers will weigh heavily on its conscience. I would imagine the situation in 2012 and especially in 2013 could go from bad to worst. 

The decision is above all based on election tactics, President Barack Obama's solution to leave troops there, just not in combat roles, until 2014 is also something of an insurance policy if Afghanistan descends into chaos. But the timing of the US and French withdrawals from combat is less than ideal. It is no coincidence that the retreat comes as presidential elections loom in both countries.

In France, the death of four French soldiers last week has made the war a hot campaign issue, while in the US Mr Obama has been under heavy pressure for more troop cuts. Political considerations are finally taking centre stage in the conflict. Politics can be this simple, even if some of the politicians at the State Department and the Western liberals refuse to accept this. 

The tragedy is that they have little to do with stability in Afghanistan. I am also disappointed that even the final policies before the withdrawal does not indicate an understanding of Afghanistan. Democracy and human rights will fail in a society that has survived without these attributes for 3000 years. Re-educating the population requires parallel values, not a view of the world that sees in every non-Muslim an 'enemy of the true God'. the US current policy is to make peace with the most extremest of these people and continue to impose democracy by funding Karzai government. Taliban and Karzai are key problems of instability in Afghanistan yet we don't understand how to deal with each. tolerance of the corruption spearheaded by President Hamid Karzai have allowed the Taliban to return to power. replacing Karzai with a stronger leadership that is not born out of consensus and can tackle corruption should be one of the options. the west should not be negotiating with Taliban not only because the group is against equal rights and education for girls and women but for pragmatical reasons. we should have learned from the history that we can not make friends with fanatics, they are unreliable and prone to erratic outburst of violence. The US plans to release five Guantánamo prisoners to make friends with taliban and aid the negotiations Washington has been engaged in for weeks with the Taliban. The goal is an agreement that will placate Karzai's government and the guerrillas. I don't think the west doesn't realise they can't be making friend with fanatics they couldn't find any human way to deal with but had to lock them up in secret prison and subject them to torture for a decade. this only means one thing and that is that the west is not interested any longer in stability in Afghanistan but a way out.  the contents of a confidential Nato report were made public according to which the Taliban are sure they will be able to reconquer the country. Nato is playing down the significance of the document, but it could be that Washington's negotiations are simply aimed at preventing the Taliban from capturing major cities after 2013 and when western troops are in the country and also to reduce the number of casualties. 

The property Market will plummet once the new of international community departure sink in, how bad is it going to be?

It is going to be very bad. House prices were driven up by the rent prices the international organisations were prepared to pay. A regular house in downtown Kabul would return around US$ 25000 per year for the owner. This encouraged many to invest in property and the price of a flat in Kabul residential areas climbed to a range of 700000 to 1 million dollars. Even the suburbs such as charai Qambar saw a huge rise, a house would be around half million dollar at the very least in this part of town. Another reason for the increase is cultural, I went to see a family friend some time ago and he advised that I should be buying a house. Many people who made good bucks in the gold rush of foreign assistance have invested the money in a house. It is seen as an investment but also an icon of status.

Now we are facing a scenario where house prices in the suburb of Kabul cost as much as to buy a similar one outside London in the UK and higher than most European countries.

The international money has also funded the extravagant mansions in Kabul's most expensive neighbourhood of Shirpur, Wazir Akbar Khan and Shari Naw. Ornately gilded pillars hold up pastel-hued balconies; brightly coloured domes crown mosaic walls made of mirrored tiles. In this part of town most homes were built by Afghanistan's corrupt political elite on land stolen from the poor and the state since 2003. A good majority of these houses are rented by mercenaries, embassies, the UN, warlords, MPs, ministers, high ranking government officials and television journalists, scrambled to pay tens of thousands of dollars in rent, and moved in. these houses are known as "poppy palaces" because of the suspicion that they were built with the proceeds of opium smuggling. These are the luxury houses and the first thing which will happen as the tide of Western money starts to recede is a drop in the prices of these houses. This has already started to happen. The prices of these houses are crashing as we talk. The prices had plunged by half and plummeting at a faster rate. The rent for one 14-bedroom house had dropped from dollars $18,000 a month to $9000. Properties are empty for the last six months since Obama announced the withdrawal of troops.

Once the foreign money starts to recede considerably in the next couple of years the time of bust will set in. not only the prices of houses come to the real world level but there will be a serious panic, initiated and stimulated by panic selling. 

Why Liberal Muslims don’t matter?

It was a few weeks ago that I went to a talk in southbank centre on the summer “uprisings” that swept across the Middle East. Among others a Muslim academic from Egypt talked about the “revolution”.  She talked of falling in love with revolution. That she is a proud Muslim but not an Islamist. She also emphasized on the need for freedom for all human beings and how western politics deptrived them by supporting autocratic regimes across the region; here she unleashed on the west for double standards and moral corruption.

Once you summarise the speech and look at her line of thinking you will realize that it is one of those common thread of thinking that is prominent among “moderate Muslims” and the one that western liberals could easily associate themselves with, because of its universality such as all people are rational including Muslims and a believe in things are going to eventually take a turn for the better.  

This theme of thinking has been incurring around me for the last few days and it was the other day that I come across Marwan Muasher article that was published in New York Times; the response is not for Mawan Muasher but to all Muslim Liberals that argue along the same train of thought. To summarise Marwan is saying:

Islamists are unlikely to take over new governments in the Arab world for reasons:

first, Islamists are not stupid. Arab countries face daunting challenges and whoever governs them will need to tackle tremendous political and economic problems. 

Second, Islamists are not as popular as Western pundits and policy makers think. Political Islam benefited from closed authoritarian systems.

You've heard this "thought" expressed in one way or another, the message of the Islamists resonates with the Islamic believes and common thinking, the common man is not politically active but will listen to the words of Islam in whatever format and shape delivered. The second point Marwan is making is exactly why we should worry. The Taliban were not that popular, they started with a group of 800, the Ayatollahs of Iran were a minority but took over the revolution. The popularity of Islamists has never been the problem but the question has been whether it could be contained by the government or not and that is exactly the worry about brining Taliban to the government.

Now to clear the first point raised, (1) If Marwan knows what is in the minds of Islamists, it is his solemn responsibility to inform us of the source of his information, and also to share it with the authorities. (2) If he does not know what is in Islamists minds--as seems enormously more probable--then why does he rush to appoint himself the ventriloquist's dummy for such a faction? Who volunteers for such a task at such a time?

Not only is it indecent to act as self-appointed interpreter for the killers, but it is rash in the highest degree. The fanatic Islamists have not favoured us with a posthumous manifesto of their grievances, or a statement of claim about Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan, but we are nonetheless able to surmise or deduce or induct a fair amount about the ideological or theological "root" of their act and if we are correct in this, then we have considerable knowledge of two things: their ideas and their actions.

I don’t think there is the need to talk about the killings that happen by the Islamists on daily basis or the several thousand Hazara that were massacred in Bamyan by the Taliban or the fact that women can’t vote in Kuwait or drive in Saudi Arabia. I think the action of the Islamists speak for itself but lets contemplate about their thinking, to the Wahhabi-indoctrinated sectarians of Islamists (that are not only driving the politics of Islam in the Arab world but also in Afghanistan) only the purest and most fanatical are worthy of consideration. The teachings and published proclamations of this cult have initiated us to the idea that the tolerant, the open-minded, the apostate or the followers of different branches of Islam are fit only for slaughter and contempt. And that's before Christians and Jews, let alone atheists and secularists, have even been factored in. As before, the deed announces and exposes its "root cause." The grievance and animosity predate even the Balfour Declaration, let alone the occupation of the West Bank. They predate the creation of Iraq as a state. The gates of Vienna would have had to fall to the Ottoman jihad before any balm could begin to be applied to these psychic wounds. And this is precisely, now, our problem. The Taliban and its surrogates are not content to immiserate their own societies in beggary and serfdom. They are condemned, and they deludedly believe that they are commanded, to spread the contagion and to visit hell upon the unrighteous. The very first step that we must take, therefore, is the acquisition of enough self-respect and self-confidence to say that we have met an enemy and that he is not us, but someone else. Someone with whom coexistence is, fortunately I think, not possible.  

Now to the question I raised at the beginning of why Islamic Liberals are irrelevant to the political discourse of the region. The Liberals have no real ties with their own societies, they are merely the face of Islam to the rest of the world and that is precisely what is bothering me. The group claim for universality of rights while advocating the Barbaric Islamic Fascists, further the liberals would take any opportunity to unload the blame on the west.  The secularists would only be successfully once the Islamic countries address the issue of injustice and corruption that has riddled these countries therefore removing the common cause for public disillusionment. In such an environment the determined minority of secularists and modernist could be able to seize the opportunity, as was the case in Turkey by the elite officers of the army, and pull the country out of the polluted water of Islamic Fascism that they all seem to drown currently.