Most Afghans are glad the United States overthrew the Taliban

[Evil One]

As you can see here, the vast majority of Afghans seem to be pleased that the United States took care of the Taliban.

Among the interesting facts from the link:

"Almost nine in 10 - 87 percent - say the US-led overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 was a good thing for the people of Afghanistan. And three-fourths of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction, far higher than in the United States, where only three of 10 say that."

and

"Six in 10 Afghans say attacks on US troops cannot be justified, while three in 10 say they can."

I'm not surprised to find some proponents of Islamofacism still around...but it seems pretty clear that the Afghans think that things are moving in the right direction.

So what is the difference between what's happening there and what's happening in Iraq? I would be willing to guess that sixty percent or more of the Iraqi population is also not in favor of attacking Americans. I would also bet that a majority would say that it's a good thing Saddam is gone. The percentage is probably not as high as in Afghanistan because Saddam was smart enough to keep bread on the shelf and just rape and kill a few people at a time rather than by the dozens. Is this why more Iraqis are unhappy about what happened? Their lives were comfortable enough as long as Saddam left them alone and the trains ran on time...so they see the current situation as affecting them personally?

So why the apparent disconnect between Afghanistan and Iraq? Both countries had a repressive government removed and the United States is spending blood and treasure trying to clean up the mess. Yes, the mess is of our own making...in both countries. We could have just dropped the hammer and left if that was our intent, but we didn't.

Why do the Afghans support what we are doing and the Iraqis don't? Or are we just seeing things from Iraq through a negatively colored ideological prism...i.e. "Sure three dozen schools opened today...but four people were killed in a car bomb!"

I know I'm going to hear simplistic conspiracy theories like "It's all a plot to steal the oil" and "Bush just wanted revenge for daddy"...but I would like to move beyond the liturgy of comfort if we can.

[John Mace]

We don't have 150,000 troops in Afghanistan. Most Iraqis are happy we got rid of Saddam. They just don't want us there anymore. It's not hard to understand. In fact, we might get kicked out by the new government, if it's representative of the populace.

I don't think this is hard to understand.

[Quartz]

A colleague was serving in Afghanistan last year and has said that the Afghans were very positive.

As for Iraq, good news just isn't news. Have you tried reading the various milblogs?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Why do the Afghans support what we are doing and the Iraqis don't?

Because they're two entirely different nations, with different cultures, different histories, different standards of living before the invasion, different pretexts for being invaded... I'm really not seeing how the two situations are comparable, except that they happen to both be nations currently under US occupation.

[Ravenman]

I really haven't given this deep thought, but one of the first thing that occurs to me is that Afghans were in the midst of a civil war when the US intervened in October 2001 -- essentially on one side, which of course prevailed. That settled the civil war with a definitive conclusion.

OTOH, in Iraq there was general order -- repression, yes, but general order -- and our invasion has basically started a civil war. Why should Iraqis be happy about that?

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by John Mace

We don't have 150,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Very good point. And a major difference between the two countries at this point in time.

However, I wonder just how often the average Iraqi encounters an American soldier? If they live in the Sunni triangle, I'm sure encounters are common...but what about those millions of Iraqis that have never even seen a soldier?

How do they feel? And what factors are shaping their opinion?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Very good point. And a major difference between the two countries at this point in time.

However, I wonder just how often the average Iraqi encounters an American soldier? If they live in the Sunni triangle, I'm sure encounters are common...but what about those millions of Iraqis that have never even seen a soldier?

How do they feel? And what factors are shaping their opinion?

I'd guess that your average Kurd is happy to have US troops in Iraq. There is very little violence in the Kurdish areas, and most Kurds are thrilled that we arranged things so that they were already opperating semi-autonomously after Gulf War I. They generally like Americans, and they want us to help limit the power that the Shi'a get.

The Sunnis, for the most part, obvioulsy don't want us there.

As for the Shi'a, I'd guess they see us as being more in the way the anything else. We're limiting their power, and they know it.

[even sven]

Most Afghanis considered the Taliban to be an invading and occupying force. They did not consider it to be a legitimate native government. Furthermore, Afghanistan has been war-torn for decades. It's been a long time since anyone there has lived a normal life. At this point they really don't care what happens, as long as the fighting stops.

Iraq is very different than Afghanistan. Most of its citizens lived rather normal lives before we got there. They were at peace, now they are at war. And they didn't start this war. And, bad guy that he is, Saddam was considered their legitmate government. While a lot of people didn't like him, they also wern't too hot on a foreign government deposing him- especially when it resulted in chaos and indefinite war.

[Sampiro]

To me the biggest difference is that the Taliban was closely alligned to a man who killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil. Our invasion was justified and was approved by other nations and 99% of the Congress.

Saddam was evil, there is no arguing this, but he never attacked us and was not a threat. There are no shortage of evil rulers in the world- Omar al-Bashir has engaged in active genocide, Kim Jong Il's people would probably rejoice at his overthrow, Teodoro Obiang Nguema is a billionaire thanks to U.S. oil companies while most of his people are hungry, etc.- the U.S. does not have the resources to take them all out. I am glad that some good has come from the dead Americans in Iraq, but the chance of it being permanent upon American withdrawal (if that ever happens) is something even most Dubya-ites admit is negligible.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

To me the biggest difference is that the Taliban was closely alligned to a man who killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil. Our invasion was justified and was approved by other nations and 99% of the Congress.

I don't think any of that makes a difference to Afghanis or Iraqis.

[Weirddave]

Somewhat related article.

[DrDeth]

Well... there are many reasons. The Taliban actively backed and supported Al-Qaeda, so after 9/11 hardly anyone blamed us for squashing them. (Saddam supported terrorism, yes, but gave no active support to Al-Qaeda). The Taliban was not recognized as the legit government of Afganistan, so instead of invading a soveriegn nation, we were backing one side of a civil war.

So- we were right in Afganistan, wrong in Iraq.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by furt

I don't think any of that makes a difference to Afghanis or Iraqis.

Apparently, some people can answer only one question about Iraq, and it's not the one you asked in the OP. For them, the answer is always: We were wrong to Invade Iraq.

Q: What is the capital of Iraq?
A: We were wrong to invade.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by furt

I don't think any of that makes a difference to Afghanis or Iraqis.

You don't think that Iraqis are informed enough to care that we invaded their country even though they had not attacked us? Or that the 27,000+ Iraqi civilians killed in our invasion and occupation died in an unasked for and unwarranted invasion? Just how simple do you think these brown heathens are?

Originally Posted by John Mace

Apparently, some people can answer only one question about Iraq, and it's not the one you asked in the OP. For them, the answer is always: We were wrong to Invade Iraq.

One question? There were several in the OP:

So what is the difference between what's happening there and what's happening in Iraq?

The percentage is probably not as high as in Afghanistan because Saddam was smart enough to keep bread on the shelf and just rape and kill a few people at a time rather than by the dozens. Is this why more Iraqis are unhappy about what happened?

Is this why more Iraqis are unhappy about what happened?

Their lives were comfortable enough as long as Saddam left them alone and the trains ran on time...so they see the current situation as affecting them personally?

So why the apparent disconnect between Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why do the Afghans support what we are doing and the Iraqis don't?

All of the questions are based on the wagered opinions of the O.Poster- what exactly are these opinions based on? Is Evil One an expert in the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan (two cultures as distinct and different as America and Brazil)? Does he have his finger on the pulse of the Mentale Arabesque? What?

I think it's fair to say that Iraqis are mad as hell over the fact that Americans invaded their country, killed tens of thousands of their citizens, and devastated their economy when there was not an active state of war and they were not being held hostage by terrorist Fundamentalists (and in fact were the most secular nation in the region, though that will no doubt now change). It is also my opinion that it is patronizing and idiotic to think that this would not make a "liberating force" a bit less welcome.

Afghanistan had been gangraped by soldiers from all over the globe before the Taliban came to power and by all objective accounts the Taliban only made the problem worse. They forced women to beg in the streets rather than work even if they were their family's only means of support. They killed at random in the name of Islam, beat and stoned women for not wearing burqas and men if they tried to assist them, it was a rule of terror and the people were starving. In Iraq, there was also a rule of terror, but for the most part the people were not starving, and women were not being forced to beg in the street and semi-literate mullahs were not ordering beheadings and firing squads over perceived blasphemies, the oppression was for political enemies to the dictatorship. How is it a mystery even worthy of a thread why Iraqis are less welcoming than Afghans?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

One question? There were several in the OP:

So, which question did your post answer? I don't see it being relavent to any of them. Most Iraqis aren't pissed at us because we invaded. They're pissed at us because we're still there.

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Why do the Afghans support what we are doing and the Iraqis don't?

You provide a cite for the first part of the statement but not for the second. Why do you assume that the majority of Iraqis don't support what we are doing?

From what I've read more and more Iraqis are supportive of the US troops. Remember, only about 20% of the country is Sunni. And there are indications that even they are starting to support us.

Sorry, no cites this evening; computer is too slow.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

You don't think that Iraqis are informed enough to care that we invaded their country even though they had not attacked us? Or that the 27,000+ Iraqi civilians killed in our invasion and occupation died in an unasked for and unwarranted invasion? Just how simple do you think these brown heathens are?

Your statement was that

To me the biggest difference is that the Taliban was closely alligned to a man who killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil. Our invasion was justified and was approved by other nations and 99% of the Congress.

I don't think Iraqis give two shits about how Congress voted, about whether Saddam was in material breach of UN 1441 or not, whether there were links between Saddam and Bin laden or not, or whether Bush's coalition represented a large-enough percentage of the world community or not.

I think those things you list as the "biggest differences" are quite meaningful for Americans discussing the wars, but irrelevant from the point of view of the people on the ground. Do you think any of those 27,000 would feel better if the invasion had been UN-approved?

I submit that Iraqis and Afghanis will far more likely judge these wars based on:

1) Am I better-off?
2) Are my family and freinds better-off?
3) Is my nation better-off?

[DanBlather]

Q: What is the capital of Iraq?
A: Everything changed after 9/11.

[RaftPeople]

The two countries (as stated previously) were in very different places prior to invasion.

Afghanistan Pre-Invasion:
Decades of civil war
Multiple independent warlords controlling various areas with constant fighting between each other, roadblocks, theft, murder, rape, you name it.
USSR, US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and various other wealthy individuals and countries all dumping money and weapons into Afghanistan.
At the time of the invasion they were controlled by foreign Arabs (Sunni Muslim Taliban) that were acting in a dictator-like fashion.

Note: The Taliban were actually welcomed at first because they were taming some of these warlords and achieving a level of peace the average person was happy to see. Then they went off on their own tangent which became an equally unacceptable situation for the Afhganis.

Afghanistan Post-Invasion:
Foreign Arabs gone
Run by Afghans once again (and specifically an Afghani from a well-respected family)


Iraq Pre-Invasion:
Cruel dictator for some percentage of the population.
But for those that did not come into close contact with the horror stories we have all read, they lived in a reasonably stable country with an economy that allowed people to raise a family.

Iraq Post-Invasion:
Security and economic concerns for average family are generally worse than prior to invasion.

A significant portion of the population (Sunni Muslims - just like the Taliban) were aligned with Saddam and appear to be unhappy he is gone, and are doing everything they can to disrupt the process being put in-place by the US.

[Henry-Finland]

How about no "Shock and Awe" in Kabul?

Henry

[furt]

Originally Posted by Henry-Finland

How about no "Shock and Awe" in Kabul?

Henry

There was no Shock and Awe used anywhere; it was a bluff that was put in the media to fool Saddam.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/teste...y/22780-1.html

[BrainGlutton]

. . . OTOH, and surprisingly, they ain't necessarily so glad that the Taliban/Muhajedeen overthrew the Communists. Some Afghans seem to remember the Soviet occupation period as comparing favorably with anything before or since, including the current situation. Discussed in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=304345

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

At the time of the invasion they were controlled by foreign Arabs (Sunni Muslim Taliban) that were acting in a dictator-like fashion.

Without disagreeing with the general thrust of your post, I'll just add a little corrective to the effect that the 'foreign Arabs', while disliked, made up neither the leadership nor the bulk of the Taliban rank and file. The Taliban were/are very Pushtun in aspect, despite ( or in fact including ) their slightly hybrid theology.

The issue, insomuch as it was one, was more was that the Taliban sheltered and loosely aligned with foreigner-based militias like ObL's.

- Tamerlane

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

The Taliban were/are very Pushtun in aspect, despite ( or in fact including ) their slightly hybrid theology.

The issue, insomuch as it was one, was more was that the Taliban sheltered and loosely aligned with foreigner-based militias like ObL's.

Noted.

I thought I rembered that the Taliban was even a student led movement initially, but don't really remember for sure.

[Quartz]

How many here actually read milblogs? Precious few, I'd guess.

[Henry-Finland]

Originally Posted by furt

There was no Shock and Awe used anywhere; it was a bluff that was put in the media to fool Saddam.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/teste...y/22780-1.html

Bullshit!
The Shock and Awe was never discussed as "bombing Baghdad back to the stone-age".
It was about precise-bombing.
And that happened.
Or do you mean that the European TV-stations set up some fire-works in Baghdad every night?

Henry

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

Noted.

I thought I rembered that the Taliban was even a student led movement initially, but don't really remember for sure.

The word "Taliban" can be translated as "students" (as in students of the Koran). It's a Pashto word, but ultimately derives from Arabic.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Quartz

How many here actually read milblogs? Precious few, I'd guess.

What's your point?

[bizzwire]

Originally Posted by Evil One

So what is the difference between what's happening there and what's happening in Iraq?

The leadership of Afghanistan supported an sheltered the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They acted as a staging area for al Qaida and refused repeated requests by the US government to hand him over, thus earning an invasion and ouster.

Iraq did not harbor support or protect Al-Qaida. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq posed no threat to the United States or its allies (outside of the hypothetical threat that any country with access to a well-stocked University biology lab poses)

Basically, the only thing the two countries had in common was that they were run by assholes; Something they share with the Unites States, I'm afraid.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by bizzwire

and Iraq posed no threat to the United States or its allies.

I agree with most of your points other than this one- Iraq was a threat to Isreal (an allie) and the Kurds (well, maybe not 'allies" per se).

[jimmmy]

Originally Posted by Evil One

So what is the difference between what's happening there and what's happening in Iraq? I would be willing to guess that sixty percent or more of the Iraqi population is also not in favor of attacking Americans. I would also bet that a majority would say that it's a good thing Saddam is gone. The percentage is probably not as high as in Afghanistan because Saddam was smart enough to keep bread on the shelf and just rape and kill a few people at a time rather than by the dozens. Is this why more Iraqis are unhappy about what happened? Their lives were comfortable enough as long as Saddam left them alone and the trains ran on time...so they see the current situation as affecting them personally?

The best thing I have ever seen on Iraq for facts and figures is the Brooking Institution‘s Iraq Index (pdf-pops). The last one came out Dec.5. In it (on page 36) you can see the British Ministry of Defense’ s last poll was in August found 45% (and 65% of Iraqi’s in Maysan Province) felt that attacks on the troops were justified.

The International Republican Institute’s polling showed Iraqi’s evenly divided on Right-Wrong direction.

But Overwhelmingly and constantly when asked to name the top 3 problems, as furt and others said, in Iraq Iraqi’s name the lack of electricity, and lack of adequate housing more significant by twice the margin before the next problems: in order unemployment, followed closely by the presence of Foreign troops (circa 10% of the population naming this one of the top 3 problems).
Those are the issues, as far as any reasonable person can measure not being there, that matter the most to Iraqi’s and may be useful as to the whys and whatfors.

The only other point I would make is an echo of Tamerlane's that Afghanistan regime switched from Pashtun to Pashtun. In Iraq it switched from Sadam’s Sunni’s to a Kurd-Shiite dominated government (pg. 42 on the linkshows the current make-up) and it really is a case 40% of the country going from running stuff and being the "eleites" to being (very) minor players