Afghan Citizens Unaware of 9/11

[Bolo]

An intriguing report has been released, and you can read about it here. Essentially, it explains that in two provinces of Afghanistan where the US and NATO troops have been engaged in the heaviest fighting (Helmand and Kandahar), 92% of local civilians are completely unaware of the fact that 9/11 happened. By extension, they are also unaware of why the US conducted an invasion of Afghanistan in the first place, and why the troops continue to patrol there.

This, of course, suggests that it is lack of awareness of the reasons for intervention, not opposition to foreign intervention itself that is causing the fight to continue unabated 9+ years after it was first launched. It also suggests that awareness is a key to securing local support and creating a situation similar to the awakening councils that saved Iraq from insurgency in 2007. This could signal the beginning of an education effort by US troops to bring the impoverished Afghans over to the side that has their best interests in mind. Could this be the key to securing the objective of stability in Afghanistan?

[Proteas]

... Afghanistan is a 3rd world country, and you're surprised a good bit of their population doesn't get to see the international news on a regular basis?

[Warforger]

At 11/19/10 06:58 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: This DOES make sense, since Afghani/Iraqi citizens who know why we're here seem to be more supportive than ones that don't. However, I have my doubts that our PR problems are really that simple.

Its ironic because one of the reasons Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting us is because of our attacks on civilians and support of nations like Israel which attack civilians. In places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel they go through a 9/11 every other week, some of them were even supported directly by the US (Bin Laden was inspired to do 9/11 when saw the US navy bomb two towers in Lebanon). I honestly doubt that they'd be as moved from 9/11 as we were.

[Bolo]

At 11/19/10 10:26 PM, Proteas wrote: ... Afghanistan is a 3rd world country, and you're surprised a good bit of their population doesn't get to see the international news on a regular basis?

I never said that I'm surprised they don't know. Afghanistan is probably one of very few places on Earth where the citizens are almost entirely uninformed about what are some of the most momentous international events of the last half century, and my comment was merely that their lack of knowledge probably contributes to their hostility.

[orangebomb]

At 11/19/10 10:53 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 11/19/10 10:26 PM, Proteas wrote: ... Afghanistan is a 3rd world country, and you're surprised a good bit of their population doesn't get to see the international news on a regular basis?

I never said that I'm surprised they don't know. Afghanistan is probably one of very few places on Earth where the citizens are almost entirely uninformed about what are some of the most momentous international events of the last half century, and my comment was merely that their lack of knowledge probably contributes to their hostility.

Not to mention, at the time of the attacks, much of Afghanistan was under Taliban rule, which would have manipulated whatever media they had there, almost acting like nothing happen on 9/11, until the U.S military arrived in Afghanistan later that year.

[adrshepard]

At 11/19/10 10:29 PM, Warforger wrote:

Its ironic because one of the reasons Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting us is because of our attacks on civilians

Complete bullshit, though they may publicly claim it's the reason. Every single civilian casualty estimate in Afghanistan in the past few years has placed the majority of the killings on the part of the insurgents and terrorists there. Stop trying to frame it as though there would be peace tomorrow if all the US forces were gone because the Taliban are only being defensive.

and support of nations like Israel which attack civilians.

Because the Taliban treated civilians under their rule so much better, right? It's not like they just want power; the Taliban and others genuinely have the best interests of civilians at heart.

In places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel they go through a 9/11 every other week, some of them were even supported directly by the US (Bin Laden was inspired to do 9/11 when saw the US navy bomb two towers in Lebanon).

Well that's just wrong. It was an Israeli action he was referring to. That isn't a simple mistake, either. Who knows why in the hell you would even connect US military action with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Honestly I just don't see how you think it improves our country by constantly talking it down in favor of religious zealots, oppressive governments, and a general culture that's still living in the 10th century. Do you sincerely believe that all the Abu Ghraibs and supposedly deliberate white phosphorous shellings in Gaza bring the Western world so far down that groups like Hamas and the Taliban offer a better life for Gazans, Afghanis, etc, now and in the future?

[Warforger]

At 11/20/10 01:17 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/19/10 10:29 PM, Warforger wrote:

Its ironic because one of the reasons Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting us is because of our attacks on civilians

Complete bullshit, though they may publicly claim it's the reason. Every single civilian casualty estimate in Afghanistan in the past few years has placed the majority of the killings on the part of the insurgents and terrorists there.

In Afghanistan, never mentioned other nations....

At 11/20/10 01:17 AM, adrshepard wrote: Stop trying to frame it as though there would be peace tomorrow if all the US forces were gone because the Taliban are only being defensive.

Not what I'm saying. Oh please, all the military commanders ask for is more troops, Iraq needed more troops, didn't work out, Vietnam needed more troops and a draft took place and that failed disastrously, what makes you think Afghanistan would be different?

and support of nations like Israel which attack civilians.

Because the Taliban treated civilians under their rule so much better, right? It's not like they just want power; the Taliban and others genuinely have the best interests of civilians at heart.

They treat them how they think they should be treated. Its not as though they're not paranoid.....

In places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel they go through a 9/11 every other week, some of them were even supported directly by the US (Bin Laden was inspired to do 9/11 when saw the US navy bomb two towers in Lebanon).

Well that's just wrong. It was an Israeli action he was referring to. That isn't a simple mistake, either. Who knows why in the hell you would even connect US military action with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

No he clearly referenced a fleet supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon......

Honestly I just don't see how you think it improves our country by constantly talking it down in favor of religious zealots, oppressive governments, and a general culture that's still living in the 10th century. Do you sincerely believe that all the Abu Ghraibs and supposedly deliberate white phosphorous shellings in Gaza bring the Western world so far down that groups like Hamas and the Taliban offer a better life for Gazans, Afghanis, etc, now and in the future?

Wow. I'm saying how they're angry and were motivated to do what they do, I'm not saying we should just give them flowers. Again, they never get to speak up and say why they did what besides on rare occasions and usually its taken by government agencies and given a huge biased translation, then private translators take the message and find the real message.

[aviewaskewed]

I wonder why no one has asked the question that popped into my head:

If we are aware that most people do not know why we are there, do not have wide access to information, and the highest numbers are in the regions with the worst fighting...why don't we...um...TELL THEM WHY WE'RE THERE? I mean, seriously, why isn't there some kind of effort via leaflet or some other means to disseminate the mission statement of why we are in they're country engaged in combat operations? Didn't anybody think this might be a helpful idea?

[adrshepard]

At 11/20/10 02:05 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/20/10 01:17 AM, adrshepard wrote: Complete bullshit, though they may publicly claim it's the reason. Every single civilian casualty estimate in Afghanistan in the past few years has placed the majority of the killings on the part of the insurgents and terrorists there.

In Afghanistan, never mentioned other nations....

What does that even mean? The Taliban is fighting us because of US operations in Iraq and elsewhere?

At 11/20/10 01:17 AM, adrshepard wrote:

Not what I'm saying. Oh please, all the military commanders ask for is more troops, Iraq needed more troops, didn't work out, Vietnam needed more troops and a draft took place and that failed disastrously, what makes you think Afghanistan would be different?

What does that have to do with anything? You said that the Taliban and others are fighting us because of our attacks on civilians, which would presumably end if there were no US operations in the Middle East. You're implying that our presence in Afghanistan is the main cause of violence. Saying "one of the reasons why..." in your original point is a useless hedge if the other reasons would still remain anyway.

No he clearly referenced a fleet supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon......

And what did you reference when you said "he saw the US navy bomb two towers in Lebanon?"

Wow. I'm saying how they're angry and were motivated to do what they do, I'm not saying we should just give them flowers.

That's not how it appeared to me, but ok.

[Warforger]

At 11/20/10 11:45 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/20/10 02:05 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/20/10 01:17 AM, adrshepard wrote: Complete bullshit, though they may publicly claim it's the reason. Every single civilian casualty estimate in Afghanistan in the past few years has placed the majority of the killings on the part of the insurgents and terrorists there.

In Afghanistan, never mentioned other nations....

What does that even mean? The Taliban is fighting us because of US operations in Iraq and elsewhere?

I'll guess I'll have to dig up Bin Laden's message

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

- Osama bin Laden, 2004

[zephiran]

At 11/20/10 03:16 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

If we are aware that most people do not know why we are there, do not have wide access to information, and the highest numbers are in the regions with the worst fighting...why don't we...um...TELL THEM WHY WE'RE THERE?

What I think the occupational force in Afghanistan is looking at right here is a credibility issue: sure, they COULD make an effort to inform people about what they are doing and WHY, but how many would actually believe it, especially considering it's coming from a source with a vested interest in subduing regional conflicts and downplaying any and all shortcomings and failures of the occupational force?

I see a signifcant risk that the information wouldn't be well received by the local populace. The expression:

"LOL the fuck is up with this shit, americans expect us to actually BELIEVE that jumbo? Do they think we're ass-backwards retarded-in-the-dick-stupid or something? That's batshit and they know it!"

Comes to mind.

I don't think the locals SHOULDN'T know about it, I just think they'd see it as weird if "we" told them ("we" in this case pretty loosely refers to any foreign or western element currently present in the country, this includes but is not limited to the US).

Someone totally should tell them, but I think it would have a greater impact if "we" (see above) could find a medium trusted by the local populace through which to relay the information. It's just a shame I can't think of anyone or -thing like that though to be honest really, so I might as well agree with you outright.

Yeah. There should be an informational campaign of some sort, performed by the occupational force if noone else. It just MIGHT help out a little.

[Thecrazyman]

Because most of the Afghan Citizens where made unaware of the September 11th attacks, it's likely that the bulk of their population is also unaware of the First and Second World Wars as well.

To put that simple, the bulk of the Afghan Citizens are centuries behind us, because of this they should be more educated towards the time we currently live in.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/20/10 09:48 PM, zephiran wrote: What I think the occupational force in Afghanistan is looking at right here is a credibility issue: sure, they COULD make an effort to inform people about what they are doing and WHY, but how many would actually believe it, especially considering it's coming from a source with a vested interest in subduing regional conflicts and downplaying any and all shortcomings and failures of the occupational force?

I can see what you're saying, but these are people who also don't get access to a lot of info and with the regularly citizenry you're fighting for hearts and minds. If it's not US telling them what we want them to here about why we're there, then it's going to be The Taliban or some other unfriendly talking to them. I'm not saying if we do this they'll all eat out of our hands and be our bestest buddies...but geez it just seems like a colossal failure when something so simple seemingly hasn't even been attempted.

I see a signifcant risk that the information wouldn't be well received by the local populace. The expression:

"LOL the fuck is up with this shit, americans expect us to actually BELIEVE that jumbo? Do they think we're ass-backwards retarded-in-the-dick-stupid or something? That's batshit and they know it!"

Comes to mind.

Possible, but at the same token is telling them nothing and just shooting in their backyard with no explanation any better? If all they see is soldiers with guns, they're going to want to know why, and if we're too busy to tell them, then somebody else is going to and we may really really not like what they have to say.

I don't think the locals SHOULDN'T know about it, I just think they'd see it as weird if "we" told them ("we" in this case pretty loosely refers to any foreign or western element currently present in the country, this includes but is not limited to the US).

I'm not saying telling them will make them love us. But I think it's a lot better then the risks we open up by telling them nothing and just shooting. It also damages our credibility when we say "we're trying to do what's best for the Afghan people" when it looks like we don't even really care enough to tell the Afghan people that and why.

Someone totally should tell them, but I think it would have a greater impact if "we" (see above) could find a medium trusted by the local populace through which to relay the information. It's just a shame I can't think of anyone or -thing like that though to be honest really, so I might as well agree with you outright.

Thanks much. I see your point, I totally do. I just think if we're in a position of "no win" (and I don't think we are) here, it's better to tell them and have them go "oh fuck you bullshitters" vs. say nothing and have The Taliban or somebody give them their version and then the locals go "well, those US fucks said nothing...so this must be true!!!!"

Yeah. There should be an informational campaign of some sort, performed by the occupational force if noone else. It just MIGHT help out a little.

Agreed.

[zephiran]

At 11/21/10 01:06 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Yeah. There should be an informational campaign of some sort, performed by the occupational force if noone else. It just MIGHT help out a little.

Agreed.

Actually, here's a thought. An international, concentrated effort centered on furthering general education in remote and undeveloped areas of Afghanistan, like the ones mentioned in the study. If this is done, then you don't have to deal with the awkward situation of having a combatant force that I am pretty sure is considered to be imposing by much of the local populace doing any kind of informational work that may be labelled "propaganda" by those seeking to dismiss it. You may also gain the added benefit of a potentially increased level of secularism and thus potentially increased resistance towards fundamentalism.

Why should "we" (again, loosely referring to any western element in the great A here) stop at just telling people about the mission objective and background? It lies in "our" interest to make an effort to increase the levels of education, does it not?

"The more they know..."

[TheSongSalad]

What surprises me is that no one figured this out in 2002. No one is going to suddenly change their mind about us being there for legitimate reasons. When you take a stance, and someone points to evidence against your stance, you are more likely to believe in your original stance even more strongly.

[stafffighter]

I'm not arguing that we aren't there for legitimate reasons. I know that we are. Moving on.

The general consensus here seems to be that education and general awareness will bring them to our point of view. That strikes me as a little bit arrogent.
You talk about how uninformed of us they are, but how much Afghani history are you aware of? Yes our educational system has a lot more stability and resources but even with that a lot of people manage to be ignorant of the world outside of America.
These people did not see Americans show up and have it instantly click that they were there for what they saw on American news up to that point. And frankly if that was taken into account then, like Avie said, there wouldn't be a void of information for other forces to fill.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

Understandable. When you live in the middle ages, you're more concerned with the status of your goats. Milking your goats, feeding the billy goat more, keeping their pens clean

I love goats

[stafffighter]

At 11/24/10 07:18 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Understandable. When you live in the middle ages, you're more concerned with the status of your goats. Milking your goats, feeding the billy goat more, keeping their pens clean

I love goats

Being sympathetic to them being too simple minded to agree with us is still saying that they would agree with us if they weren't so simple minded. Does no one else see the arrogence in this?

[zephiran]

At 11/24/10 07:03 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 11/24/10 07:18 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Understandable. When you live in the middle ages, you're more concerned with the status of your goats. Milking your goats, feeding the billy goat more, keeping their pens clean

I love goats

Being sympathetic to them being too simple minded to agree with us is still saying that they would agree with us if they weren't so simple minded. Does no one else see the arrogence in this?

Actually, as I wrote my own reply I caught myself thinking "Hey, wow, I feel like a 17th century British Imperialist arguing for bringing enlightenment to the savages of the colonies! Nasty thought, I don't want to think about anything like that again, it makes me pretty damn uncomfortable."

To comfort myself for having newfound closet-imperialist thoughts, I justified my proposal deep back in my head by something I didn't learn too long ago reading a Political Sciences coursebook:
Democracies don't wage wars against other democracies. For a society to develop into a working democracy it needs to fulfill several criteria, and unless I'm totally pulling boogers out of my arse here, one of those criteria is a relatively high level of education. I think I read that in a book by Dahl. No wait, Dahl didn't deal with the formation of democracies, it was... Goody, Lauri Karvonen, "Democratization", 1997.

But be that as it may, yeah, I can totally see why it would be arrogant to assume that if only the local populace knew more about the why's and when's they'd swing over to "our" side like one of those special enemy units that could have a magical battlefield conversation with the heroes to be converted to the Hero Cause in Fire Emblem and similar games. But the thing is, you're assuming, or at least it seems to me like you're assuming, that this is the kind of immediate coat-turning that I and others am expecting to happen for SURE. I can only speak for myself here, but still. I don't think it'll sway people's minds over to be pro-americana just like that, I'm picturing a kind of indifferent "Hunh."-reaction to be honest. What I AM hoping will happen is that locals will start taking Taliban propaganda with a grain of salt, provided that they already don't. Which I guess in and of itself is a kind of "western" arrogance on my part, but oh well, so be it then.