The endgame in Afghanistan rears its' ugly head.
Do I sound like Harry Reid? The Nevada Senator referred to the Iraq war as lost during the debate on President Bush's surge in Iraq. Unlike Harry Reid and his exercise in wishful thinking, I have no desire to see the U.S. fail in Afghanistan. I believe failure there would mean someday we would have to return and pacify that country all over again. Also, unlike Harry Reid I do not wish the Obama Administration to take the wrong course in this war. I have made my thoughts plain as to what I felt was the right way: an increased force size backed by a larger U.S. Army with no timetable so our enemies could not plan around our thrust. Also, unlike Harry Reid, I believe we have chosen to lose this war, not been defeated on the battlefield.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Cannonshop
Damn, STM, I wish I could have explained it that well.
27 - Jordan Richardson
war doesn't give us 'meaning' Jordan
Again, can't help but disagree. War does give, at the very least, some people meaning in their lives.
Not to continue to rip off Hedges, but war gives us a lot. It gives us cultural understanding, allowing us to create an "us vs. them tableau" through which to view other parts of the world. It gives us enemies. It gives us foes.
It gives us a cause, for example "to defend freedom." As Hedges says, "war is a drug." And further it becomes "endowed" with qualities like excitement and power. It corrupts and changes our memories of events and of conflicts. It changes everything, I think.
It is, indeed, a force that allows nobility to be granted to some and evil to be granted to others. It makes heroes. It makes villains. Again from Hedges, it gives us "a cause."
Therefore, war gives us meaning.
28 - Jordan Richardson
Hell, war even gives us fucking video games and "adventure" films.
29 - STM
Jordan, some things are worth standing up for, surely? Try the olive branch first, though, every time.
30 - STM
Thanks Cannon ... I didn't like Bush, and I didn't like the silly name he gave his war on terror even though I believe it is necessary, and I didn't agree with what happened in Iraq, but no one will ever convince me that in this instance, it's wrong. Unpalatable doesn't always mean wrong.
31 - Deano
The question of right and wrong regarding the war in Afghanistan is not the one you need to raise.
I don't think anyone can justifiably argue that a Taliban-led Afghanistan is something that builds stability, regional peace and growth, unless you define a medieval theocratic dictatorship as being a desirable form of governance...
What matters at this point is cost and political perception. The Taliban don't need to win, they just need to outlast and sap the west's willpower. STM is 100% correct - what will lose this war is attitude, will and a manifest attraction of short-term, pretend solutions. To pretend that you can stabilize, build up and leave in a very short period of time is a proven fallacy - what happened to the "six months" Cheney and Bush maintained would be the time spent in Iraq?
Successful counter-insurgency is a slow motion battle, a Long War, as the milblogs aptly put it. it is a war waged across multiple fronts, not the least of which is hammering home the concept that you can get economic value, political power and security, growth and opportunity out of committing to a peaceful resolution rather than by taking up arms.
It may very well mean making room at the table for the Taliban to be represented, once you've ground them down into a position of weakness.
The biggest enemy is time and political expediency.
32 - roger nowosielski
Who the fuck is America to play this role?
The entire War on Terror is a last ditch effort to re-establish our sense of identity.
The War on Drugs is an effort to establish our identity as a moral society.
The War on Crime is a desperate effort to establish our identity as a civilized, law-abiding society (while white-collar crime is an everyday occurrence).
Jordan is spot on. We need those wars because they provide "us" with meaning. And we need them desperately because our significance is quickly fading.
Australia or the UK are just adjuncts, little toy dogs doing America's bidding (John La Carre's description of Tony Blair vis-a-vis George Bush); but it's America whose significance is fading, not Australia's or UK's.
Sorry Dreadful and STM. No disrespect intended.
33 - Cindy
This article and thread is chock full of psychopathy.
34 - Baronius
Deano, you should post here more often.
Jordan, have you ever read any "just war" theory?
35 - STM
"This article and thread is chock full of psychopathy."
I saw psychopathy on 9/11 when innocent people trapped in airliners were flown into skyscrapers full of innocent people ... everyone just going about their daily business.
I saw it in Bali when my friend's only daughter, aged 15, was blown to smithereens along with 200 or so other people by lunatics who thought they'd like to teach decadent westerners a lesson or two. She was on a special trip for her birthday.
Anyone who doubts what this is about should watch re-runs over and over until it finally sinks in.
36 - roger nowosielski
What has the Afghani venture got to do with any of that?
The very idea of trying to hunt bin Laden down in the Afghan cave was sheer insanity -GW's notion of being heroic.
Nation-building? They don't fucking want us over there; they're happy enough with Taliban and view our presence as invasion, pure and simple.
I admire your liberal instincts - gosh, I hate this meaningless word - when it comes to fairness and fair compensation to workers in your own neck of the woods. That is admirable and part of your belief in fair play. But I don't buy anymore the idea of America spreading freedom and democracy all over the world, nor should you. Not for as long as our own hands are stained and tainted, as they surely are. We don't even give a shit enough about our own people - let them die on the streets rather than becoming insured - and yes, we care about freedom and democracy for others?
What world are you living in, Stan. This ain't World War II whereby the entire world was threatened - only an extension of American foreign policy.
And the only reason why these wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - still get a free ride because they've eliminated the draft. So they got poor suckers from the Deep South or the inner city ghettoes enlisting in these stupid wars because that's the only opportunity this country has got to offer to the uneducated and underprivileged: put your life on the line, boy, and if and when you make it out of there alive, you'll get free education.
Whoopsy fucking do!!!
37 - roger nowosielski
Consider it an honor, Deano, to be complimented by Baritone.
38 - Cannonshop
#32 Roger, who are we to play this role? we're the only ones who, at the moment, Can, Roger. It's the down-side of being 'internationalist'-for every chance of offering your olive-branches, you've got to have the spear ready in case it is rejected.
And you forget that both Iraq, and Afghanistan, got their repressive regimes in large part because of US. Saddam was a creation of CIA cold-war policy, Afghanistan fell into chaos because after we helped them repel the Soviets, we abandoned them. (Charlie Wilson was right.)
39 - handyguy
If there are "good" Taliban and "bad" Taliban, and the good Taliban form a government that replaces Karzai, will we have won?
If we succeed in preventing Al Qaeda and other terrorists from reestablishing HQ and training bases in Afghanistan, and then they succeed in launching an attack from Pakistan, or in taking hold of Pakistan's nukes -- will we have won?
If Obama had ordered all troops home by this spring, and Afghanistan had collapsed into chaotic civil war, would we have won?
It's hard to write a winning scenario in Afghanistan -- which is one reason criticism of Obama's policy was inevitable, yet meaningless.
40 - Cannonshop
#40 Handy, remember, "Taliban" means "Students" (roughly speaking) they aren't and weren't a native grown movement. In general terms, no Afghan Government is going to survive without Pashtun tribal support-the Pashtun being the largest ethnicity in Afghanistan and all...
The bigger threat with Pakistan's nukes, is their shaky relations with the other nuclear power in the area-somehow, I suspect there's more than a few factions in India that would really be keen on a live-fire test of THEIR nukes, justified by Al Quaeda getting ahold of Paki nukes.
The whole area's a pretty scary mess, but it doesn't mean sitting back, and letting a mess WE helped create fester and get worse. "Winning" in Afghanistan means Afghan self-government, free from external militant influences and no longer dependent on the Heroin trade and cash influx from state-sponsors of terrorist networks. Bonus points if we leave them in a condition where there's an institutionalized, if not necessarily deep, respect for human lives, private property, and tolerance of others (Yeah, fantasy land, this is southwest Asia...) The ideal is at least as moderate as, say, Turkey or pre-civil-war Lebanon.
41 - John Wilson
This article and supporting comments are just the usual rightists whining in an attempt to shift the blame:
"...the right way: an increased force size backed by a larger U.S. Army with no timetable so our enemies could not plan around our thrust. Also, unlike Harry Reid, I believe we have chosen to lose this war, not been defeated on the battlefield.
"
It's been 9 years, for crying out loud! Can't you Big Bold Warriors win a war against a bunch of peasants in 9 damn years!
You were all strutting around and pushing others around to get IN to this war, and now you want to blame it all on the press and the home folk.
Stop being such cowards and accept responsibility for your own poor judgement, bad instincts, and the incessant bullying of anyone who is against war.
42 - Baronius
John, I don't think any of us were attempting to shift blame. As for people being pro- or anti-war, we're discussing that on Dave's recent thread. Anyway, I don't see how a "pro-war" person could bully anyone into a war. As we've seen during the recent health care push, a congressman can always vote Nay if he opposes something.
43 - roger nowosielski
We don't offer anyone the olive branch, Cannon, not unless it's on our terms. The point, however, is - our reputation is stained to be enforcing law and order abroad - especially when the locals don't want us there. And to say that Saddam was our own creation doesn't bolster your argument, only detracts from it. We keep on playing the kingpin yes, because we still can. But the reason why we're so intent on doing, as I argued in the earlier post, because ours is a faded glory, an Empire that's shortly to dissolve. Hence the frantic efforts to preserve whatever still remains of our identity before we fade away.
And no, I don't trust America's motives, not during the Cold War and not today.
44 - Ruvy
Wake up, you dimwits! This is bullshit!
"Winning" in Afghanistan means Afghan self-government, free from external militant influences and no longer dependent on the Heroin trade and cash influx from state-sponsors of terrorist networks.
And so is this!
....remember, "Taliban" means "Students" (roughly speaking) they aren't and weren't a native grown movement. In general terms, no Afghan Government is going to survive without Pashtun tribal support-the Pashtun being the largest ethnicity in Afghanistan and all....
First of all, the largest ethnic group in the area, the Pashtun, inhabit an area far larger than Afghanistan. If you fools haven't noticed (and I know you haven't), Pakistan is falling apart. A big part of Pakistan is inhabited by Pashtun. The other thing you fools have not noticed is that not all Pashtun are Taliban.
Of course the Taliban are not native to the Pashtun. They are another poisoned creation of the United States, using Pakistan as a condom state to instill Wahhabi values in kids so they would fight the Soviets for them. Of course, now that the Soviets are gone, the Wahhabi have been free to turn on America.
Combine the Wahhabi fanaticism with the Pashtun warrior reputation (another thing you stupid Americans don't know about, and don't care about) and there is no way you can win any kind of war in Afghanistan-Pakhtunkhwah.
The old structures are collapsing over there, and new ones are shaping themselves in the ashes of the old. And the truth of the matter is that you Americans, with your heads firmly up your asses, haven't got a clue.
As the Taliban collapses, the Pashtun will re-assert themselves. They are as sick of the Taliban, the Pakistanis, and the Americans in equal doses. All any of these bastards do is bring war. As Pakistan collapses, the Taliban will gobble up the Punjab and Sind. And the Punjabi and Sindi, who have been screwing over the Pashtun in Pakistan for decades, will start to feel what it is like in an Islamic Republic.
But who am I, a mere Child of Israel who keeps in touch with the Children of Israel in Central Asia, to tell you geniuses anything?
45 - Glenn Contrarian
I just now got through reading Dock Ellis' article, and two huge mistakes really call into question everything else in the article.
Take the example of sainted FDR and the Invasion of North Africa in 1942 during World War II. Lagging in the polls, FDR urged the generals to invade before the November Congressional elections.
Mr. Ellis seems to believe that FDR only ordered the invasion of North Africa because he was 'lagging in the polls'. I'd really, really like to see him back this up, because according to everything I've ever read (and told by my VERY Republican grandparents), FDR was a hugely popular president, particularly after Pearl Harbor.
But I don't think Mr. Ellis will even try to prove his claim. Most conservatives show a real distaste for actually having to back up what they claim.
Coincidentally or not, here too Obama is following a communist game plan. Remember who the last invader of Afghanistan was?
So...has Mr. Ellis forgotten who sent the troops into Afghanistan in the first place? Or is this simply an error in syntax? Could be either one, but Mr. Ellis thinks he knows more history than he really does.
It's said that the older one gets, the more one comes to understand just how much there is that one doesn't know. Any historian worth his salt would heartily agree with that statement (and I'm only a rank amateur when it comes to history). But I do know this: as bad as Afghanistan is, it's in FAR better shape than it was when Obama took his oath of office (both times).
NO president would stay much longer than Obama did, because it would the height of irresponsibility for a Commander-in-Chief to place himself in harm's way (as is obvious to anyone who's studied what happened to the national psyche after Lincoln and Kennedy were killed)...not to mention the huge public-relations coup (with the attendant new flood in funding) for al-Qaeda if they had been able to kill the American president (whose joy at killing the president would only have been exceeded by that of the American Rabid Right). And THEN, once al-Qaeda used that funding to conduct MORE terrorist attacks on American soil, the Republicans would say, "See? We were right all along!"
It's a sad fact of modern political life that the best thing that could happen for the Republicans is a major terrorist attack with lots of American dead. If Bush had allowed a terrorist attack in 2008, McCain would be in office.
Worst of all is Mr. Ellis' complete lack of comprehension of the crap sandwich Obama was handed by the Bush administration - not only the burgeoning Great Recession, but also a pattern of utter neglect and failure in Afghanistan in the Bush administration's rush to justify their illegal invasion of Iraq (at a cost of 5000 American servicemembers and nearly a trillion dollars so far).
How bad was it when Bush was at the helm? The single greatest obstacle to stability in Afghanistan is a professional police force, and let's look at the oh-so-patriotic efforts by Bush: "...a 2006 attempt to induct 11,000 villagers into a new organization dubbed the Afghan National Auxiliary Police -- with only 10 days of training from DynCorp and international military mentors -- was a complete and abysmal failure. One-third of the trainees in certain southern provinces, given a gun and a uniform, were never seen again. Two years later, in September 2008, the project was terminated."
It didn't help that many of the expatriate law enforcement trainers hired by DynCorp were from small-town America with NO combat experience and even less comprehension of how to deal with people from outside American WASP cultures. And the fact that only about 5% of the police recruits were actually literate made things much worse.
Mr. Ellis, I don't expect you to pay the least attention to any of this, because your article evinces a near-total unwillingness to challenge your own beliefs. That, sir, is why you are so strongly conservative.
46 - STM
Roger: "What has the Afghani venture got to do with any of that?"
Plenty, that's where they were hiding out and where they are shielded and thus able to organise their filthy work. Plenty of them still are, especially along the Pakistan border.
And what planet are you living on mate? Most Afghans hate the Taliban. They don't want them there either.
You can't argue about this issue from a position of ignorance Roger.
47 - STM
Also Rog, I lived in Baghdad as a boy. I can tell you the vast majority of Iraqis welcomed the US invasion of Iraq as a liberation, because Saddam Hussein's alternative was unbearable for them. He turned Iraq into a middle-eastern version of a Stalinist state and introduced the kind of totalitarian regime that even worried other Ba'athists in the region.
I lived there as a kid and lived through a coup attempt. This is nothing new for Iraq, but it was new for them to have people "liberating" them who weren't going to make things worse in terms of the kinds of freedoms they would have.
The Baathists in Iraq could be particularly nasty. A driver who sometimes worked for my father was kidnapped from his house in the middle of the night, bashed senseless with knuckle dusters and then left to die in an alleyway not far from where we lived. Saddam was among the gangs of Baathist thugs who used to prowl the city at night in cars doing the dirty work of the party. Our friend's crime: the best we can deduce is that he didn't support their aims, as they'd come to power in coalition with a pro-western regime in the 1960s that soon worked out how bad they were and got rid of them. For that, they took his life, and left a young family without a husband and father.
As for 2003, it was what happened after the invasion that got America offside in Iraq with the locals, not the invasion itself. Abu Ghraib was about the time it really started to go pear-shaped, although it was shaping up as a mess from day one of the start of "the peace" ... for lots of reasons that would take too much space to detail here.
But don't get the idea that Iraqis and Afghanis (generally) have any desire to go back to what they had before.
48 - STM
They are also smart enough to realise that if the US-led military coalition pulls out, they are doomed to suffer the same kind of madness. One of the things they always tell people is that they don't want the western troops to leave, even if they sometimes feel like they're being occupied rather than freed. But they DO live in fear of the alternative.
49 - STM
Glenn's right about that rubbish about the invasion of North Africa.
It was launched because the British had Rommel on the run and had his armies retreating in fourth gear westwards in complete disarray after the Battle of El Alamein.
The invasion wasn't solely American, either, so it was a combined decision that was aimed at capitalising on the Eighth Army's defeat of the Afrika Korps and the Italians and couldn't have been made by FDR alone by turning to the generals. At that stage of the war, the US weren't making any of the decisions except in terms of logistics as they were depending on the British experience of fighting the Germans and hoping to learn from it without having to be "experience learners" like their cousins across the ditch.
It aimed to push at the Nazis from both directions with the hope of encircling them (which it did ... it was a worse defeat than Stalingrad in terms of German and Italian priosners and the destruction of a Nazi army) and had as part of its aim the diversion of German resources from the Eastern front.
Is there any more rubbish anyone would like to throw in so that we can dissect it rationally and truthfully accoprding to all the accepted views of historians in the US and elsewhere?
50 - roger nowosielski
"You can't argue about this issue from a position of ignorance Roger."
That's a conversation stopper, Stan, and you know it - the kind of things that would get us tangle up in a bar.
If the Afghanis were part of the US effort, they would be fighting the Taliban themselves, just as they did against the Russkies - with or without the American aid (which they surely did).
So I suggest you re-examine your own views rather than be losing your cool.
51 - roger nowosielski
BTW, Stan, just read subsequent remarks:
"as for 2003, it was what happened after the invasion that got America offside in Iraq with the locals, not the invasion itself."
I tend to agree with you there. But that doesn't change the fact we fucked up and walked right in like a bull into a china shop.
And the proof is - most of the casualties occurred after the invasion, not during. It was a failure of politics and foreign policy.
52 - STM
Rog: "If the Afghanis were part of the US effort, they would be fighting the Taliban themselves".
But they are, Rog. If you know anything about this, you will constantly hear referance to "a combined force of US, Australian (or whoever) and Afghan National Army troops". They are constantly out with US and coalition forces on military operations. They are also now doing their own with just "advisers" in tow.
They ARE doing what the did with the Russians ...
I blame your media there in the US. Any action that goes on is a US action or a US-led action. Understandable but no mention is made of anyone else mostly, but the truth is, Afghans are fighting the Taliban, and all the time, and have been from the very start.
53 - roger nowosielski
Well, if you're right, Stan, then we definitely don't get this kind of picture from MSM. Quite the contrary, all you hear about is a negative reaction on the part of the locals whenever there's any collateral damage, not to mention the recent distinction between the "good" and "bad" Taliban, or the corruption of the local government.
Besides, I don't make a straightforward equation to the effect that Taliban = Al Qaeda, do you?
Perhaps things are moving forward, politically, in terms of the aforementioned distinction between good and bad Taliban. You can't totally exclude a great part of the local population (even if it's Taliban) from having say in their own government.
But aside from all that, however, you surely must be aware that our presence there is not strictly speaking humanitarian; the stability of the region is at stake, the situation in Pakistan, not to mention economic issues.
I'll never buy the idea that chasing bin Laden down is the only reason.
54 - Ruvy
That's a conversation stopper, Stan, and you know it - the kind of things that would get us tangle up in a bar.
Perhaps you should stop flapping your jaws, Roger and pay attention. If you did you would find that I'm right, and that Stan, who reflects my views without desiring to say so, is right also.
At least Stan does not reflect the views of an American who is unable to see anything beyond his borders. Unfortunately, the lot of you are unable to see beyond your own waters.
55 - roger nowosielski
Ruvy,
I've long ceased listening to anything you've got to say. I would have thought you would have realized that by now. But in case you have any doubts, I'm reiterating again.
56 - Deano
The Taliban and Al Quaeda are two different entities that the media superficially tends to lump together or equate as identical.
The Taliban movement arose out of the muhajadeen resistance to the Soviet invasion. It was fundamentalist and not particularly well-supported across Afghanistan or even in the Pashtun regions. It was, however, gifted with the support of Pakistani Intelligence. In the wake of the Soviet departure, the US essentially shut down its support operations, boarded up the windows and left, leaving Pakistani intelligence and its Taliban underlings to do what they wanted to the remains of Afghanistan and its rivals for power.
The Taliban went to war against the Northern Alliance(mostly Tajik) and Massoud, drove them out of Kabul and took power, instituting a theocractic dictatorship that banned haircuts, music, schooling for women, kite-flying, alcohol, drugs etc.
They also welcomed Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Ladin (who had been a supporter and ally from the 'good old days") to set up training camps and bases in the country. Bin Ladin was considered a "guest" and a friend to the Taliban who were not recognized as a legitimate government by most parties.
Afgahnistan was the priamry base of operations for Al Quaeda. It was the site of planning and training for msot of the major terrorist activities that Al Quaeda has been engaged with in the last 20 years (US Cole bombing, Niarobi Embassy bombing etc, 9/11 etc.).
This is why the Taliban were targeted - for providing safe haven, support and alliance with Al Quaeda. The Taliban do not = Al Quaeda, however they are ongoing allies and the Taliban have deliberately and continually reinforced that relationship.
If you want to get a good education on the subject, I would recommend reading "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" by Steven Coll.
57 - El Bicho
"You can't argue about this issue from a position of ignorance"
If that was the standard, the Internet would be a quieter place
58 - Glenn Contrarian
El B -
Which standard - the standard of a position of ignorance, or that of a position of knowledge and understanding?
I suspect you meant the latter, and truer words were never keyed!
59 - BFTW
Having read the article and all of the comments I'm now convinced that oil and gas pipelines have absolutely nothing to do with the invasion and occupation of either Iraq or Afghanistan by the US and its allies. Nothing whatsoever. I'm not joking here. I mean it. Nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion of either country. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Bugger all. Less than bugger all in fact. So much less than bugger all that bugger all actually gives the impression of substantial evidence to the contrary.
60 - roger nowosielski
We're into nation-building, BFTW, don't you know it?
61 - STM
In the long run, it might.
But if the US had wanted Iraq's oil in 2003, they would've bought it from them, not taken the whole joint over.
The Iraqis were desperate to sell it, too.
And even if it was to do with oil, that still doesn't excuse lunatics from flying jets into skyscrapers.
Sorry, don't buy the tired old argument.
62 - roger nowosielski
". . . that still doesn't excuse lunatics from flying jets into skyscrapers."
Agreed, but the reason we think so is because we don't regards terrorist activities as acts of war. But by our very own standards, if we can speak meaningfully of being in war with them, they're in war with us.
And to take it to another level, we could equally be ambivalent about the bombing of Dresden, from which action even Churchill eventually distanced himself: what lunatics could possibly dream up the idea?
63 - STM
Come on Rog, the two are completely different things. I don't believe in the reap what you sow argument when it comes to the US either.
I don't believe the US is a malignant force on this planet, even if what it does is far from perfect and has at times in the past been questionable.
If it has any failings, it's that it collectively believes the myth of its own exceptionalism.
The Arabs have a saying: "Better be nice tyo America or they'll bring you democracy".
It's not an ideology of hate.
Whereas, you didn't have to p.ss the nazis off for them to invade you. They just did it.
And what, they're bombing the sh.t out of everyone else, and it can't happen to them.
I agree Dresden might be close to a war crime, but there was a war on at the time aimed at utterly destroying a hateful, murderous ideology in which the large majority of Germans were complicit.
64 - roger nowosielski
Of course they're "different things, Stan, but entirely different . . . That depends on definition of terms and the "privilege" that comes with what's commonly recognized as warfare.
As to your comment, "And what, they're bombing the sh.t out of everyone else, and it can't happen to them," I'm certain you don't want to press this point. After all, we don't want to be judged by the same standards, do we know? not we're are better than the Nazis.
65 - STM
America, for all its failings, is not a murderous, hateful ideology.
When you weigh it all up, America's in the black, not the red.
66 - BFTW
I almost believe that if some Saudi nationals had not learned to fly in the US and had not flown passenger jets into NY city towers on 9/11, the US would have invaded Saudi Arabia. It's all so clear now. It's just a matter of inventing dots and connections.
67 - Glenn Contrarian
BFTW -
That's pretty funny - and, given the tendencies Bush/Cheney had, possibly true.
68 - roger nowosielski
Of course they would have. Bechtel and Halliburton were itching for more business. Dick Cheney was not to be denied.
69 - BFTW
No one pretends anymore that the pursuit of power, wealth, toys and sex motivates some people.
That is just an old wives tale that the OW made up to scare the younger wives. In reality, especially in the oil and gas industry, people are motivated by pure altruism and their love for humanity. Wherever there are large deposits of oil and natural gas you will find them spreading love and peace and goodwill. It must be something in the fumes.
70 - Ruvy
Deano,
About comment #56.
You're getting there. Now all you need to do is to follow a Pashtun's point of view on all this, and you'll actually be able to try to wear their shirts for a mile and understand how they feel.
71 - roger nowosielski
There can be no better recommendation than to hear one approaches Ruvy's POV. Simply stated, it means one's about to arrive.
72 - Deano
Sorry but I'm not sure Ruvy's POV is what I'm moving towards...sorry Ruvy - although he is correct in that "the old structures are collapsing"... which is a very astute observation and one primary reason the Taliban is what it is.
My understanding is that the vast majority of Pashtun in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas are concerned mainly with local power, local politics and local communities, not with 9/11, the vagaries of international terrorism or any of the like.
They are provincial, insular, conservative, clannish and proud, with a strong sense of tribal and familial identities, not overtly nationalist or even necessarily ideologically committed. Any outsiders are generally treated with disdain, comtempt or as potential people to rob or murder - unless you are a guest, in which case they will (as is the case with Bin Ladin) go to great lengths to provide courtesy and protection. Most Pashtun are not fundamentalists but much of the Taliban's appeal is rooted in ignorance and an appeal to the inate conservatism and resistance typically found in village culture. Most rural Afghans will live their lives without ever going more than five miles down the road. Neighbours are often competitors for local resources. Throw in tribal identities and blood feuds between clans and it is unsurprising that in a culture of lawlessness, the Taliban can have a powerful appeal., particularly with many of the more traditional structures within the community being strained, changed or destroyed after 30 years of war.
One of the best comparisions I've run across contrasted Afghanistan with Scotland, prior to the clearances of the Highlands and the advent of English rule. It took more than 200 years for the Scots to be hammered into at least a tolerable form of submission (although any friday night in Glasgow might belie that comment...). In the bad old days a highlander might slit your belly just for the fun of watching you die on the roadside, and cattle reaving, raids and clan wars were common. To illustrate, the word blackmail originates from the Anglo-Scots border country...
73 - STM
Deano: "It took more than 200 years for the Scots to be hammered into at least a tolerable form of submission (although any friday night in Glasgow might belie that comment...)"
Then they put 'em in the British army, and look what happened.
74 - Ruvy
Deano,
I'm typing this from a net-cafe and do not have time to be terribly careful in my spelling - there is that bus to catch some meters away!
Your description of the mountain Pashtun would have been very accurate 20 years ago. You would be surprised what cell phones can do to a culture, and how quickly isolated cultures can change - and how slowly they can change when you expect quick change.
Ther hierarchy of loyalties of the Pashtun is the same as you describe. The possibility of mere local loyalty is still likely. But the cell phone, and education, which is spreading in Afghanistan, at least, is changing the realities. How quickly they will change is something I am not wise enough to foresee. That depends on what options are presented to the Pashtun, and how they respond. That is changing as I type this response to you.
75 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
#74 is an excellent reply...and unarguable. I could sit here for an hour and not find something in your comment to argue against...and I hope you take that as the compliment that it is.