Afghan poll: majority want troops home

Updated on 05 November 2009

By Channel 4 News

Seventy three per cent of people wanting British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, a YouGov survey for Channel 4 News reveals. YouGov president Peter Kellner breaks down the results.
British soldier in Afghanistan (credit:Reuters)

Opposition to the war in Afghanistan has risen sharply in the past fortnight. Two weeks ago, 42 per cent of the British public thought the Taliban could be defeated, while 48 per cent thought they could not.

Click here to see the full results (.xls).

Now, following the deaths of five British soldiers yesterday and President Karzi's much-challenged victory in the recent election, just 33 per cent think the war can be won, while a clear majority, 57 per cent think victory is no longer possible.

As a result, 35 per cent now think all British troops should be withdrawn immediately – compared with 25 per cent two weeks ago.

Only 20 per cent think they should remain in the country "as long as Afghanistan’s government wants them there" – down from 29 per cent two weeks ago.

Women are especially keen to see British troops come home: 40 per cent think they should be withdrawn immediately, while just 13 per cent think they should stay as long as they are needed. Men divide more evenly: 31 per cent want them home immediately; while 28 per cent think they should stay as long as they are needed.

These figures are likely to concern MPs. Public opinion lacks the power to force Parliament to end Britain’s involvement; however, no Government likes to commit troops to an extended conflict, and a rising death toll, with so little public support.

Click here to see the full results (.xls).

* 73 per cent of people want troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately, or most withdrawn soon with the rest within the next year or so.
* That figure rose to 77 per cent in London.
* Support for troops in Afghanistan was highest in Scotland at 24 per cent.
* People aged over 55 were the least likely to support troops being in Afghanistan, with 77 per cent wanting troops withdrawn immediately or soon.
* Just 21 per cent of people aged 18-54 believed British troops should remain in the country as long as the Afghan government wants them there.

The polls go up and the polls go down and generally reflect the reaction of a fickle public to the last bit of news, good or bad.

Yet you raise a legitimate question. IMO, Afghanistan indeed seems to be progressively moving toward a Vietnam-like environment. We are making the same strategic mistake that we made in Somalia. We went in initially as good guys (famine relief in the case of Somalia) and saved a grateful population of Somali people from starvation. But we and the UN then succumbed to the temptation of attempting to impose an artificial political order upon them. We are making the same mistake in Afghanistan. We went in originally to attack and disrupt Al-Qaeda and did a pretty good job. But we then dramatically increased our bet by undertaking a nation-building program and trying to establish a friendly government apparatus (something that leads me to suspect that OBL was not the ONLY reason why the US went into Afghanistan). I don't believe that Afghanistan will accept any national government that even remotely smacks of having been imposed by outside interlopers, regardless of ideology.

I'm not sure what the correct solution might be at this point. That depends a great deal upon what the real goal of western foreign policy is in that region. But my strictly semi-informed suspicion is that the answer may well lie not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan.

Polls are polls, and really have little influence on leaders decisions.

Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam is an incomplete argument, and its probably better to just recognize how the west fights its wars.

I'm less familiar with the political atmosphere of 'nam, but i did have a chance to speak to some friends of mine who were in Iraq/Afghanistan and Africa.

One Marine friend of mine, who's actually very unpolitical, was quite ****ed off when he was sent to Afghanistan to do what he was trained to do, then upon practically mowing over what ever military there was they stopped advancing. In his own words, his frustration was that the enemy was near defeat and could've been wiped out, however a nearing political election caused the current administration to halt the advancement of troops in order to maintain a positive political perception of the voters. Remember...we're just invading Afghanistan.....election....now we're invading Iraq.
This lull caused the enemy, not necessarily the Iraq military, to organize and recognize weaknesses in defending another military strike from the US. Four years later, that presidency is since come and gone, but the "war" if you want to call it that is still not over.

Was Vietnam similar to this, i wasn't alive yet?

When speaking to citizens about war, the west is also more sensitive to loss of life. Losing just one troop seems to attract a lot of disdain and remorse, where there are other nations who will fight wars with huge losses and not have the emotional backlash from its people.
I think terrorists recognize this and use it to their advantage.

`Afghanistan the new Vietnam?`

It`s possible and might even be so.

There`s a big difference this time though... the media are being carefully controlled. No mass camera footage to scare the civvies.

Confirmation of this should be in about 5 years.

quote:

No mass camera footage to scare the civvies.

I wonder if they can hide the coffins coming home... I'm sure Michael Moore (and others) will have his say.

Pull out all troops, fill the place with mercenaries.

Watch as hilarity ensues.

quote:

Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Confirmation of this should be in about 5 years.

quote:

No mass camera footage to scare the civvies.

I wonder if they can hide the coffins coming home... I'm sure Michael Moore (and others) will have his say.

They don't hide the coffins in the UK,its big news,and I actually think our government is quite rattled by the polls.

We should get out of there asap.

The Americans appear to have forgotten all the lessons of the Vietnam war and the British seem to just go along with it all forgeting what it was that made us the best trained troops in Nato.

I saw a report on the attack on the base at Wantan last month. Now I'm not a military genius but even I know that building a base that is surrounded by high ground is just asking for trouble at best and criminally negligent at worst. Do the names Dien Bien Phu and Khe Sahn ring no bells with the people in command?

We have politicians (and ex-politicians) who are far too involved in the military decision making process ( again the echoes from Vietnam ) and who should be brought to account and if necessary prosecuted for the UK's war policies in the middle east.

We are trying to establish a democratic government that is turning out to be corrupt just as the USA tried in South Vietnam.

We went in and destroyed the Al Queada training bases which was good. But then decided to stay and try to pacify a country which has successfully resisted all attempts by others to do so in the past.

If the Soviets were unsuccessful using their military might virtually unrestrained, then the Wests attempts to fight a PC war can only lead to a long and bloody waste of lives trying to force democracy onto a people who do not want it and really couldn't give a sh!t who is in charge as long as they can get on with their lives in peace.

It is time to withdraw and face the uncomtortable truth that this war is not a winnable one and not worth the lives of good people to keep it going.

The historical legacy of Blair and Bush has been to destabalise the world to a degree never seen since the second world war.

It's actually criminal that politicians get away with this.... We also have ****heads down here in ZA who think it's a good idea to send troops to Congo, Somolia...

WW2 was done with in 5 & 1/2 years

after 9/11 the american public wanted blood - it didnt matter that the taleban could have been negotiated with

& now american forces are dying , proping up a corrupt government thats deep in a civil war . Karzai can only survive with american might . if the election wasnt a good enough reason to bail , what is ?

The problem with these type of 'minor wars' is that it's not a world war, where the world's freedom is threatened (ie: WW1, WW2).
The only freedoms threatened are the peoples who are invaded - No guesses here.
So judging from history, who always loses = the Invader...

I can see clearly now, the rain has gone....

I don't know if anyone remembers Erich Hartmann saying that 'We must avoid war, and negotiate a peace'
My GPa refused to talk about the war, only saying 'It was horrible' - His only words

So many other 'vets' send the same message...

On this topic, the 'pro-war' silence is deafening... and so it should be ..

...and what did the teleban have to do with 9/11.....
and when is Bush going to be brought to justice for the 9/11 inside job?

quote:

Originally posted by fabianfred:
...and what did the teleban have to do with 9/11.....
and when is Bush going to be brought to justice for the 9/11 inside job?

..... The teleban had nothing to do with 9/11. That was the teletubbies. Oh no, sorry, I forgot - it was Al Qaeda, who were the houseguests of the Taliban.


..... Bush will be brought to justice for 9/11 just as soon as they can prove that he paid those sixteen muslim fanatics to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings. But your intrepid investigators from Looney Tunes ARE hot on the heels of **** Cheney and Karl Rove for stuffing all the air conditioning ducts of the World Trade Center Towers full of C-4.

I think this is going a little off topic, fabianfred. I'd start another thread. In another forum. Preferably on another planet.

There are enough things that GWB could be bought to justice for without resorting to crackpot conspiracy theories: All I'm going to say on that subject...