93% for the occupation

In an interview with David Miliband on the Today Programme, John Humphrys brought up the question of 5 british soldiers recently killed in Sangin, and Miliband responded that that 'shows the terrorists' ability remains'. Humphrys interrupted him:

JH: Sorry... you said the terrorists there. You said the terrorists' ability remains.
DM: Yes
JH: Some people might argue, might they not, that if you are Afghan, and see yourself as defending – we of course would take a different view of this – but see yourself as defending your country against foreign invaders – in what sense are they terrorists?
DM Well no, the very large number of Afghans reject that point of view. That's precisely the point I was making earlier...
JH: How do you know that?
DM: Well because the BBC reported very, very clearly a poll that it gave huge prominence too – a poll which said that 93% of Afghans don't want to go back to the Taliban...
JH: That's a completely different point
DM: No it's not, it's a very relevant point, because …

bla bla bla. It is not at all a relevant point, of course, but Humphrys took the challenge no further. The impression was left that a BBC poll had shown that by a huge majority, we were not seen as invaders, that there was great support for the occupation – overwhelming support, at 93%.

So I looked up the poll, which makes interesting reading. You have to hunt to find Miliband's figure, twice quoted in that 10 minute interview. First of all you wade through several pages where almost every indicator – on women's rights, living conditions, security from crime and violence, availability of jobs, clean water, access to food, electricity, medical care, freedom of movement, security – is desperately low, as we would expect, but also desperately lower than it was 4 years ago. 1

On page 8, there is a question about who people would rather have ruling the country today. Only 4% say the Taliban (that's also up from 1% in 2005), and 4% expressed no opinion. That doesn't quite get us to 93% against the bad old days; so I read on.

Question 17: From today’s perspective, do you think it was very good, mostly good, mostly bad or very bad that U.S. military forces came into our country to bring down the Taliban government in 2001?

A question nearly as loaded as Miliband's 93% figure. If people interpreted it as the questioners obviously intended, it should have given a skewed figure of 'support' for the occupation – skewed in favour of the occupation, because the question associates invasion with the overthrow of the Taliban (and with nothing else)2.

69% of respondents replied to that question that it was 'very good', or 'mostly good'. That's actually down from 87% in 2005 - perhaps because people are beginning to realise that the US military forces 'coming into' the country and the overthrow of the Taliban are not necessarily one and the same. One of those having happened, bringing with it air strikes and collapse of the country; and the other having happened, and then effectively unhappened, what with the increasing strength and reach of the Taliban in recent years.

Even so, and despite the skewing of the question, 69% support for the original invasion does not add up to 93% not wanting to return to the past (however irrelevant that statistic is, in response to a question about whether or not we are seen as unwelcome invaders). So on we go.

Question 18 of the poll asks directly whether people support the NATO/ISAF military forces (effectively what Humphrys was getting at in his question): 59% support it, strongly or 'somewhat'. Later on, respondents are asked whether certain countries are playing a positive, neutral or negative role in Afghanistan: the UK scores 24% positive (and 38% negative). Hardly a 93% endorsement of our actions.

Another question asks whether NATO/ISAF forces should be reduced, increased, or kept at the same level. That ought to be a good indicator of support for the occupation. The survey finds that 44% - nearly half of the population – want numbers of foreign troops decreased. The following question finds that 51% of the population want troops out now (21%) or some time in the next 2 years3. A later question finds that 77% think air strikes by the US/NATO are unacceptable. Hardly surprising, but surely relevant if what we are considering is whether or not our presence is regarded kindly.

So you see, it really takes a lot of reading to find anything 'supportive' of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. In fact, it would be easy to get as far as page 20 and come away with the impression that things are terrible, are perceived as being terrible, have become worse not better under the invasion; and that despite the fact that the Taliban are blamed (just) for most of the violence (27%, as opposed to a total of 21% who blame US/NATO)4, still half of the population would like us to leave, if not now, then some time in the next year or 2 years.

Miliband has been very discerning in reading this survey. In response to a question about whether we might be seen as invaders, and whether the local population might feel themselves justified in attacking 'our boys', he responds with one statistic irrelevant to the question, plucked from the end of a survey which on the whole shows everything which argues against his message.

The survey shows that people feel less secure, that violence is on the rise, that food, electricity and other basics are harder to come by, that US air strikes on civilians are overwhelmingly felt to be unjustified (77%), and even (25%) that 'attacks against U.S. military forces or NATO/ISAF in Afghanistan can be justified'.

You would not expect Miliband to broadcast any of that - although you might expect some at the BBC to be aware of the thrust of the survey, particularly since they commissioned it themselves. But we have to be impressed by the sheer gall of our Minister for War (and Chief Propagandist) using that survey to suggest not once, but twice, that our presence in Afghanistan is justified, because 93% of the population 'don't want to return to the bad old days of the Taliban'.

The closest match that I can find to his claim is to be found in question 38, on page 20 of the survey,

Q38. Now I’m going to ask what you think about some people and groups. Is your opinion of …… very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

Taliban:

Very favourable - 3%
Somewhat favourable - 4%

TOTAL: 7%

I can't stand this New Labour government. My attitude is very unfavorable. Is that enough to send the bunker busters in?

• 1. The poll of course shows no comparison with 2000, when we began to throw our military might at the people and infrastructure of that country.
• 2. no ulterior motives for the invasion to be considered, of course
• 3. 16% want us to go within 6-12 months
• 4. this figure is cleverly divided up to show that 12% blame US/American forces, 6% blame the Bush/US government/America, and 3% blame NATO/ISAF forces