I’ll admit that there was a marked lack of responsibility in the west just leaving Afghanistan alone after that, but given that Western nations are criticized when they do attempt to intervene, is it really a fair criticism to say they should’ve stepped in?
Surely, a lot could have been done without any “intervention” whatsoever, to get rid of the weapons. For example, if the West had simply announced a monetary reward for every gun/missile/rocket/launcher turned in, the number of weapons floating about in the country in the hands of the Islamists would have been drastically reduced, a lot of lives would have been saved, and the total cost would have been far less than what the cost of war eventually amounted to.
And, after de-weaponized the country in this way, we could have held an election (under UN auspices, say), and gotten out, leaving the country to the elected government, with perhaps a small UN force for the first few years to train the new government’s security forces. And we could have helped with education, rebuilding the schools and health centers that had been destroyed by war. (All this we did in the end, after 2001, but it seems to have been too little, too late — after we’d already destroyed the country for the second time by then (after the Talibans, with the weapons we had left them, had destroyed the country the first time around).
If we had done what I suggest above, we’d have at least earned some goodwill, if not the love, of ordinary Afghans. As things stand now, we have managed to earn their hatred through our irresponsibility.
We in the West have always thought of the lives of people in faraway lands to be “disposable” and “dispensable”, so we didn’t care any more after the Russkies were out and the Cold War was over, even though the warlords were flush with weapons and oppressing the common people.
I don’t get it [the link is okay]. I’m not following what’s going on at the link.
Fisk is now officially beyond parody. He has become a a footnote in the DSM-IV; Delusional State, see Fisk, Robert.
“…and clearly, whatever came out of the sky fell over a large area. There were huge pieces of metal. One had a figure 225 written on it. It wasn’t in Arabic numerals, it was in Roman numerals.”
And as some commenters pointed out: What? Roman numerals? It said “XXCCV”?
(And as a couple of other commenters said: “Where was that jet from? The Vatican?”)
It’s one thing to have a point of view. It’s another thing to make things up. Sometimes, I wonder if Fisk is actually aware of his inaccuracies — they’re so egregious, after all — and just doesn’t care, since he knows his audience is going to accept anything he spins out.
And whoops! I’m sorry everyone, I didn’t make clear that I was referencing a different Timblair.net thread. This is the one I was referring to. The one Neo was linking covered Fisk’s two predictions, one from 2003.
Sorry, folks!
I uses me Fisks!
-Popeye
nyomythus,
Assuming you have the correct link, the idea is that Fisk is not shy at making grand evaluations of military capability even when he has been proven grievously wrong. In that way, he’s symbolic of so much of the media which makes bad predictions constantly, and neither admits them, nor apparently learns from them after the fact.
Of course, I do think Neo’s title is a little confusing because its not really an example of Fisking. If it was, it would be two quotes that direcly contradict one another, which I have no doubt, you could find from Fisk.
Maybe the title is what you are referring to.
Okay thanks — maybe it’s weird but I’ve never heard of a Robert Fisk — guess I have now.
Okay thanks — maybe it’s weird but I’ve never heard of a Robert Fisk — guess I have now.”
OHH, Damn. Sorry. If you don’t know the imfamous Fisk, you would definitely not get the joke.
“Fisking”, if you are not familiar with the term, is basically taking apart someone’s comments, essay, etc., piece by piece, typically because it is chock full of crap, to put it plainly. Here’s some background:
Yes, Nyo (Nyo? Neo?… heh…), Fisk is a reporter who’s often rightly picked on for his confusing his illusions with facts. I take slight issue with the Wikipedia article because, outside of one detached reference to the word “error”, the rest of the doc basically dodges the question of why Robert Fisk is the poster child for the sort of refutation known as “Fisking”: It’s because he’s been known to make up facts out of thin air. That’s why he’s singled out. Many reporters mix analysis into their stories. Fisk’s sin isn’t his point of view, it’s his generation of points from nothing identifiable other than fantasy. One example I take from a recent article of his here ( http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Lebanon/200843) :
“so contemptuous of their enemy were the Israelis that although their warship was equipped with cannon and a Vulcan machine gun, they didn’t even provide the vessel with an anti-missile capability…”
The Israeli navy ship that was hit was the INS Hanit, a Sa’ar 5-class missile boat (from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150886004498 ). The only “Vulcan machine gun” listed among the armaments of that class of ship is indeed an anti-missle weapon platform known as the “CWIS” (you can Google for that, or “Phalanx Close-in Weapons System”). Unless Fisk, when he said “they didn’t even provide the vessel with an anti-missile capability…”, he meant that they had the system turned off, as some have reported, he’s making that fact up from nothing. But by saying what he did in the manner that he did, he does get his thesis across, that non-Arabs often have flashes of ignorance that lead them to committing grave errors against the clever enemy. You can see similar examples in his Iraq reporting; it’s chocked full of that stuff.
Another example? See the Timblair.net thread here.
Fisk totally lends himself to point-by-point refutations because he so consistently gets basic facts wrong, or worse yet, completely makes them up from nothing.
This is an aside from the topic – I’m sorry.
As Neo-Conservative [unlike a Republican] I never was a Bush-lover or a Bush-hater, and even though I think he’s right-on with most of his foreign policy, and he was the better of the two opposing candidates, nevertheless this makes me cringe:
My gut response is, “Man, he needs to just go home – forget the G-8 Summit. Just go home before you do anything else ridiculous.” Is NASA accepting volunteers for a Mars colony yet? I’m ready to go. In Bush’s defense, what could possibly be funnier is that the Left wing media will have something to talk about while the Hezbo-Israeli war rages. I’m dieing in the streets here in stitches, help!
I just used the Wiki article because it was handy. I think Fisk is a weasel, no doubt, but I figured people can make their own decisions when they read them.
Regarding the Bush “molesting” Merkel thing, its another media created issue. Just like Bush’s “sh*t” comment, the press and certain reactionaries are using ordinary behaviour to create some sort of issue. Looks to me like Bush is clowning around with Merkel, and if you look at the video, when she shrugs him off she is smiling.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Fisk is also famous for his being beaten up by Afghans and remarking, “If I were an Afghan, I too might have attacked Robert Fisk.”
That was actually my introduction to the man; I saw him say this on TV and, although I’d never heard of him before, it immediately occurred to me that there was something very very odd about the man–a strange combination of Western guilt, masochism, self-importance, and veneration of violence.
It’s true that the Iraqi army didn’t resist the invasion. However, they “melted away” and seem to have subsequently joined the Iraqi resistance /insurgency in substantial numbers, and look at how much trouble the US is having in defeating the insurgency.
I read that — about him being attacked in Afghanistan. You know it all probably happened so fast that he didn’t have time to do anything, and thus later constructed his conscious, or the rationale of his behavior during the incident, in his report.
Neo, I have a question about HaloScan if I may — Q: The only way to see old blogger comments and new HaloScan comments is to get the premium service?
I registered with HaloScan, but then I disabled it because my blog wasn’t showing the old blogger comments.
Or is this fixed by inserting the Haloscan code into your blogger template manually rather than automatically?
fisked…..fusked, as in fusk you, or get fusked you dirty rat….???
neo-neocon wrote: Fisk is also famous for his being beaten up by Afghans and remarking, “If I were an Afghan, I too might have attacked Robert Fisk.”
That was actually my introduction to the man; I saw him say this on TV and, although I’d never heard of him before, it immediately occurred to me
Neo-neocon, what do you think of Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister)’s remark that if he (Barak) were Palestinian, he would have joined Hamas?
Do you also think that remark in a similar category? Why or why not?
Actually, Barak said the following, in 1998, “If I were a young Palestinian, it is possible I would join a terrorist organization.” “Possible” is different than “would.” Barak was making a basic observation that cultures help form people. Fisk, on the other hand, made the remark (as best I can recall) immediately after he’d been savagely beaten by a mob, and even was still bleeding and bandaged. This is quite a different thing, psychologically speaking–up close and personal, rather masochistic, and very very strange.
Most of us in this forum are familiar with professor Juan al-Cole, who speaks for terrorists.
Another of Fisk’s innumerable problems is illuminated in that statement after being attacked: He starts from the position that past sins committed by the west are severe enough that any unthinking reaction by those in the present are justified. Which is as ridiculous a stance as it is inane. That would be akin to excusing me for attacking a random Japanese person for killing several of my uncles in Corregidor back in WWII. What, I’m such a slave to my past that I don’t need to consider the current individual? What, the Afghanis are so enslaved by actions taken back in the 1800’s, or at latest, 1920, that it’s forgivable to smack someone around in the 21st century?
I thought the excesses of reveling in the “roughness of sackcloth and the squalor of ashes” was discredited back in the Middle Ages. I guess it’s found new life today in many who hate the west.
“What, the Afghanis are so enslaved by actions taken back in the 1800’s, or at latest, 1920, that it’s forgivable to smack someone around in the 21st century?”
Why do you think that the “latest” is 1920? The West pumped huge amounts of money and weapons into the ranks of the islamic mujaheddin (one of whom was Bin Ladin) in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when these people were fighting the Russians. (Of course, back then they weren’t called “terrorists” because they were US allies at that time). Then, when the Russians left, the West basically forgot about Afghanistan, and all these weapons in the hands of the terrorists and warlords were then turned against the Afghan people to oppress the people. What the West did in Afghanistan was simply irresponsible, and Afghans have good reason to be angry and distrustful of Westerners.
Graham–
Given the USSR isn’t around anymore, bogging down the Russians in Afghanistan was worth it. The Taliban took power in 1996 under Clinton’s watch, but his Republican successor took it down in 2001. As a result, your complaint has no basis, and even no point for that matter.
Unless, of course, you think the USSR was this great utopia (or just as bad) as the oppressive, liberal democracies that challenged it into bankruptcy.
Because 1919 was the date when Afghanis declared independence from Britain, and 1920 was when it was formalized, and the British presence was reduced to diplomats and bureaucrats in their embassy. From the 20’s through the late 80’s, the Soviets were the foreign influence and, after their invasion, the foreign presence. Not the west. I was talking about actual presence and occupation when I wrote the line you’re quoting. Anyway… The West did give money, aid, and weaponry to the Afghans in that period of time, but that was gladly accepted aid in the fight against the Soviets. Characterizing it as negative in Afghani history is a strange point of view, as that assistance helped them eject a hated enemy. Either they would’ve fought them with Western assistance, or they would’ve done it without that, and denying the money and weaponry might have kept western hands clean (echoes of several of Neo’s past posts), but the consequences would’ve been just as severe: Much bloodshed, plus a continued Soviet occupation on top of that. The West had an interest in helping eliminate the occupation, and the Afghanis were going to fight it regardless. So before Western assistance is characterized as “irresponsible”, keep in mind the alternative of the continued occupation, plus the fact that the fighting would have happened regardless.
(cont’d below)
(cont’d)
Also, laying blame for the problems in Afghanistan on the west alone is ignoring history; much weaponry used in Afghanistan was Soviet/Russian made, even after their withdrawal; the US was far from being the only arms supplier. Much military training of the Taliban – the single biggest oppressor of Afghanis since the Soviet withdrawal – either occurred in Pakistan or in country by those trained in Pakistan. The Soviets during their occupation and the Pakistanis afterwards had a far larger impact on Afghan society during that period than the West did. When the west provided money and weapons, it was with an eye towards ending an invasion; characterizing it as irresponsible shifts blame away from those who actually instigated the depredations in Afghanistan in the wake of the Soviets withdrawal: The Taliban, and the Pakistani INI (Intelligence Service). They weren’t enabled by the US or the rest of the West as much as they simply took advantage of the opportunities provided with the withdrawal. It’s true that they might not have had the opportunities they did if the West didn’t render aid to fight the Soviets, but it’s a stretch to think that the alternative – a continued Soviet presence, and endless fighting by factions unable to eject the Soviets – would be any better. I’ll admit that there was a marked lack of responsibility in the west just leaving Afghanistan alone after that, but given that Western nations are criticized when they do attempt to intervene, is it really a fair criticism to say they should’ve stepped in? Maybe they should have, but the criticisms would have merely been the ones we hear about intervention today, just pronounced a decade or so earlier.
J.H. Bowden wrote:
The Taliban took power in 1996 under Clinton’s watch, but his Republican successor took it down in 2001. As a result, your complaint has no basis, and even no point for that matter.
“Many of the men spoke about wrongs they felt they had suffered. They said crops have never grown properly since 2002; they believe the soil was poisoned by US munitions. Others spoke of arrests and of relatives taken to Guantanamo Bay or Bagram airbase, and of the suspected abuses carried out there. “Many people have picked up their guns and gone to the mountains because their houses have been searched without permission,” said Mohammed Hashem. “If there are ten men in a family and one of them has been hurt by the Americans, the rest of the family will of course co-operate with al-Qaeda.”
“It was revealing to see these men, who are normally labelled terrorists or evildoers, among their families and neighbours. These were not stereotypical barefoot and illiterate Taliban, but men of the world, well travelled, educated, speaking Urdu and Arabic as well as their native Pashto. The reasons they fought but are no longer fighting are complex, to do with economics as well as politics. Some desire a normal life after years of fighting; some still consider America and Karzai as enemies but do not want to be “tools of Pakistan and its intelligence service”.
“The sense of aggrieved nationalism is strong. “Even if you take me to Guantanamo or kill me,” said one man, “I will still say that this is our country. Come here in a polite way and you will be welcome. But come into our homes as you do – taking the men out and keeping the ladies inside – that is against our culture and our religion. The British and the Russians learned the hard way: if anyone comes here by force, they won’t be here for long.” ”
— Talking to the Taliban
Kate Clark
Monday 17th July 2006 New Statesman, UK
J.H. Bowden wrote: Unless, of course, you think the USSR was this great utopia (or just as bad) as the oppressive, liberal democracies that challenged it into bankruptcy.
Of course not. But you’ve got to admit that, under the atheistic soviets, women in Afghanistan were much better off than they were under the Islamist Taliban, who forced them into burqas under pain of death. Under the soviets, girls got an education, which came to an end when the mujaheddin (supported by us in the West — what shame!) came to power and prohibited girls from going to school.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
El Mondo Hummus wrote:
I’ll admit that there was a marked lack of responsibility in the west just leaving Afghanistan alone after that, but given that Western nations are criticized when they do attempt to intervene, is it really a fair criticism to say they should’ve stepped in?
Surely, a lot could have been done without any “intervention” whatsoever, to get rid of the weapons. For example, if the West had simply announced a monetary reward for every gun/missile/rocket/launcher turned in, the number of weapons floating about in the country in the hands of the Islamists would have been drastically reduced, a lot of lives would have been saved, and the total cost would have been far less than what the cost of war eventually amounted to.
And, after de-weaponized the country in this way, we could have held an election (under UN auspices, say), and gotten out, leaving the country to the elected government, with perhaps a small UN force for the first few years to train the new government’s security forces. And we could have helped with education, rebuilding the schools and health centers that had been destroyed by war. (All this we did in the end, after 2001, but it seems to have been too little, too late — after we’d already destroyed the country for the second time by then (after the Talibans, with the weapons we had left them, had destroyed the country the first time around).
If we had done what I suggest above, we’d have at least earned some goodwill, if not the love, of ordinary Afghans. As things stand now, we have managed to earn their hatred through our irresponsibility.
We in the West have always thought of the lives of people in faraway lands to be “disposable” and “dispensable”, so we didn’t care any more after the Russkies were out and the Cold War was over, even though the warlords were flush with weapons and oppressing the common people.
I don’t get it [the link is okay]. I’m not following what’s going on at the link.
Fisk is now officially beyond parody. He has become a a footnote in the DSM-IV; Delusional State, see Fisk, Robert.
“…and clearly, whatever came out of the sky fell over a large area. There were huge pieces of metal. One had a figure 225 written on it. It wasn’t in Arabic numerals, it was in Roman numerals.”
And as some commenters pointed out: What? Roman numerals? It said “XXCCV”?
(And as a couple of other commenters said: “Where was that jet from? The Vatican?”)
It’s one thing to have a point of view. It’s another thing to make things up. Sometimes, I wonder if Fisk is actually aware of his inaccuracies — they’re so egregious, after all — and just doesn’t care, since he knows his audience is going to accept anything he spins out.
And whoops! I’m sorry everyone, I didn’t make clear that I was referencing a different Timblair.net thread. This is the one I was referring to. The one Neo was linking covered Fisk’s two predictions, one from 2003.
Sorry, folks!
I uses me Fisks!
-Popeye
nyomythus,
Assuming you have the correct link, the idea is that Fisk is not shy at making grand evaluations of military capability even when he has been proven grievously wrong. In that way, he’s symbolic of so much of the media which makes bad predictions constantly, and neither admits them, nor apparently learns from them after the fact.
Of course, I do think Neo’s title is a little confusing because its not really an example of Fisking. If it was, it would be two quotes that direcly contradict one another, which I have no doubt, you could find from Fisk.
Maybe the title is what you are referring to.
Okay thanks — maybe it’s weird but I’ve never heard of a Robert Fisk — guess I have now.
Okay thanks — maybe it’s weird but I’ve never heard of a Robert Fisk — guess I have now.”
OHH, Damn. Sorry. If you don’t know the imfamous Fisk, you would definitely not get the joke.
“Fisking”, if you are not familiar with the term, is basically taking apart someone’s comments, essay, etc., piece by piece, typically because it is chock full of crap, to put it plainly. Here’s some background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/F/fisking.html
Yes, Nyo (Nyo? Neo?… heh…), Fisk is a reporter who’s often rightly picked on for his confusing his illusions with facts. I take slight issue with the Wikipedia article because, outside of one detached reference to the word “error”, the rest of the doc basically dodges the question of why Robert Fisk is the poster child for the sort of refutation known as “Fisking”: It’s because he’s been known to make up facts out of thin air. That’s why he’s singled out. Many reporters mix analysis into their stories. Fisk’s sin isn’t his point of view, it’s his generation of points from nothing identifiable other than fantasy. One example I take from a recent article of his here ( http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Lebanon/200843) :
“so contemptuous of their enemy were the Israelis that although their warship was equipped with cannon and a Vulcan machine gun, they didn’t even provide the vessel with an anti-missile capability…”
The Israeli navy ship that was hit was the INS Hanit, a Sa’ar 5-class missile boat (from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150886004498 ). The only “Vulcan machine gun” listed among the armaments of that class of ship is indeed an anti-missle weapon platform known as the “CWIS” (you can Google for that, or “Phalanx Close-in Weapons System”). Unless Fisk, when he said “they didn’t even provide the vessel with an anti-missile capability…”, he meant that they had the system turned off, as some have reported, he’s making that fact up from nothing. But by saying what he did in the manner that he did, he does get his thesis across, that non-Arabs often have flashes of ignorance that lead them to committing grave errors against the clever enemy. You can see similar examples in his Iraq reporting; it’s chocked full of that stuff.
Another example? See the Timblair.net thread here.
Fisk totally lends himself to point-by-point refutations because he so consistently gets basic facts wrong, or worse yet, completely makes them up from nothing.
This is an aside from the topic – I’m sorry.
As Neo-Conservative [unlike a Republican] I never was a Bush-lover or a Bush-hater, and even though I think he’s right-on with most of his foreign policy, and he was the better of the two opposing candidates, nevertheless this makes me cringe:
Bush Strikes from Behind
My gut response is, “Man, he needs to just go home – forget the G-8 Summit. Just go home before you do anything else ridiculous.” Is NASA accepting volunteers for a Mars colony yet? I’m ready to go. In Bush’s defense, what could possibly be funnier is that the Left wing media will have something to talk about while the Hezbo-Israeli war rages. I’m dieing in the streets here in stitches, help!
I just used the Wiki article because it was handy. I think Fisk is a weasel, no doubt, but I figured people can make their own decisions when they read them.
Regarding the Bush “molesting” Merkel thing, its another media created issue. Just like Bush’s “sh*t” comment, the press and certain reactionaries are using ordinary behaviour to create some sort of issue. Looks to me like Bush is clowning around with Merkel, and if you look at the video, when she shrugs him off she is smiling.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Fisk is also famous for his being beaten up by Afghans and remarking, “If I were an Afghan, I too might have attacked Robert Fisk.”
That was actually my introduction to the man; I saw him say this on TV and, although I’d never heard of him before, it immediately occurred to me that there was something very very odd about the man–a strange combination of Western guilt, masochism, self-importance, and veneration of violence.
It’s true that the Iraqi army didn’t resist the invasion. However, they “melted away” and seem to have subsequently joined the Iraqi resistance /insurgency in substantial numbers, and look at how much trouble the US is having in defeating the insurgency.
I read that — about him being attacked in Afghanistan. You know it all probably happened so fast that he didn’t have time to do anything, and thus later constructed his conscious, or the rationale of his behavior during the incident, in his report.
Neo, I have a question about HaloScan if I may — Q: The only way to see old blogger comments and new HaloScan comments is to get the premium service?
I registered with HaloScan, but then I disabled it because my blog wasn’t showing the old blogger comments.
Or is this fixed by inserting the Haloscan code into your blogger template manually rather than automatically?
fisked…..fusked, as in fusk you, or get fusked you dirty rat….???
neo-neocon wrote: Fisk is also famous for his being beaten up by Afghans and remarking, “If I were an Afghan, I too might have attacked Robert Fisk.”
That was actually my introduction to the man; I saw him say this on TV and, although I’d never heard of him before, it immediately occurred to me
Neo-neocon, what do you think of Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister)’s remark that if he (Barak) were Palestinian, he would have joined Hamas?
Do you also think that remark in a similar category? Why or why not?
That remark is reported in the following article in Prof. Juan Cole’s blog) — Cole is a history professor at University of Michigan — and you can access it here:
http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/levine-on-arafat-guest-editorial-death.html
It was also reported in an article in “Z Magazine”, and you can access the article here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6676
Painer Man:
Actually, Barak said the following, in 1998, “If I were a young Palestinian, it is possible I would join a terrorist organization.” “Possible” is different than “would.” Barak was making a basic observation that cultures help form people. Fisk, on the other hand, made the remark (as best I can recall) immediately after he’d been savagely beaten by a mob, and even was still bleeding and bandaged. This is quite a different thing, psychologically speaking–up close and personal, rather masochistic, and very very strange.
Most of us in this forum are familiar with professor Juan al-Cole, who speaks for terrorists.
Another of Fisk’s innumerable problems is illuminated in that statement after being attacked: He starts from the position that past sins committed by the west are severe enough that any unthinking reaction by those in the present are justified. Which is as ridiculous a stance as it is inane. That would be akin to excusing me for attacking a random Japanese person for killing several of my uncles in Corregidor back in WWII. What, I’m such a slave to my past that I don’t need to consider the current individual? What, the Afghanis are so enslaved by actions taken back in the 1800’s, or at latest, 1920, that it’s forgivable to smack someone around in the 21st century?
I thought the excesses of reveling in the “roughness of sackcloth and the squalor of ashes” was discredited back in the Middle Ages. I guess it’s found new life today in many who hate the west.
“What, the Afghanis are so enslaved by actions taken back in the 1800’s, or at latest, 1920, that it’s forgivable to smack someone around in the 21st century?”
Why do you think that the “latest” is 1920? The West pumped huge amounts of money and weapons into the ranks of the islamic mujaheddin (one of whom was Bin Ladin) in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when these people were fighting the Russians. (Of course, back then they weren’t called “terrorists” because they were US allies at that time). Then, when the Russians left, the West basically forgot about Afghanistan, and all these weapons in the hands of the terrorists and warlords were then turned against the Afghan people to oppress the people. What the West did in Afghanistan was simply irresponsible, and Afghans have good reason to be angry and distrustful of Westerners.
Graham–
Given the USSR isn’t around anymore, bogging down the Russians in Afghanistan was worth it. The Taliban took power in 1996 under Clinton’s watch, but his Republican successor took it down in 2001. As a result, your complaint has no basis, and even no point for that matter.
Unless, of course, you think the USSR was this great utopia (or just as bad) as the oppressive, liberal democracies that challenged it into bankruptcy.
Because 1919 was the date when Afghanis declared independence from Britain, and 1920 was when it was formalized, and the British presence was reduced to diplomats and bureaucrats in their embassy. From the 20’s through the late 80’s, the Soviets were the foreign influence and, after their invasion, the foreign presence. Not the west. I was talking about actual presence and occupation when I wrote the line you’re quoting. Anyway… The West did give money, aid, and weaponry to the Afghans in that period of time, but that was gladly accepted aid in the fight against the Soviets. Characterizing it as negative in Afghani history is a strange point of view, as that assistance helped them eject a hated enemy. Either they would’ve fought them with Western assistance, or they would’ve done it without that, and denying the money and weaponry might have kept western hands clean (echoes of several of Neo’s past posts), but the consequences would’ve been just as severe: Much bloodshed, plus a continued Soviet occupation on top of that. The West had an interest in helping eliminate the occupation, and the Afghanis were going to fight it regardless. So before Western assistance is characterized as “irresponsible”, keep in mind the alternative of the continued occupation, plus the fact that the fighting would have happened regardless.
(cont’d below)
(cont’d)
Also, laying blame for the problems in Afghanistan on the west alone is ignoring history; much weaponry used in Afghanistan was Soviet/Russian made, even after their withdrawal; the US was far from being the only arms supplier. Much military training of the Taliban – the single biggest oppressor of Afghanis since the Soviet withdrawal – either occurred in Pakistan or in country by those trained in Pakistan. The Soviets during their occupation and the Pakistanis afterwards had a far larger impact on Afghan society during that period than the West did. When the west provided money and weapons, it was with an eye towards ending an invasion; characterizing it as irresponsible shifts blame away from those who actually instigated the depredations in Afghanistan in the wake of the Soviets withdrawal: The Taliban, and the Pakistani INI (Intelligence Service). They weren’t enabled by the US or the rest of the West as much as they simply took advantage of the opportunities provided with the withdrawal. It’s true that they might not have had the opportunities they did if the West didn’t render aid to fight the Soviets, but it’s a stretch to think that the alternative – a continued Soviet presence, and endless fighting by factions unable to eject the Soviets – would be any better. I’ll admit that there was a marked lack of responsibility in the west just leaving Afghanistan alone after that, but given that Western nations are criticized when they do attempt to intervene, is it really a fair criticism to say they should’ve stepped in? Maybe they should have, but the criticisms would have merely been the ones we hear about intervention today, just pronounced a decade or so earlier.
J.H. Bowden wrote:
The Taliban took power in 1996 under Clinton’s watch, but his Republican successor took it down in 2001. As a result, your complaint has no basis, and even no point for that matter.
Let’s hear from a reporter who’s actually traveled extensively in Afghanistan:
“Many of the men spoke about wrongs they felt they had suffered. They said crops have never grown properly since 2002; they believe the soil was poisoned by US munitions. Others spoke of arrests and of relatives taken to Guantanamo Bay or Bagram airbase, and of the suspected abuses carried out there. “Many people have picked up their guns and gone to the mountains because their houses have been searched without permission,” said Mohammed Hashem. “If there are ten men in a family and one of them has been hurt by the Americans, the rest of the family will of course co-operate with al-Qaeda.”
“It was revealing to see these men, who are normally labelled terrorists or evildoers, among their families and neighbours. These were not stereotypical barefoot and illiterate Taliban, but men of the world, well travelled, educated, speaking Urdu and Arabic as well as their native Pashto. The reasons they fought but are no longer fighting are complex, to do with economics as well as politics. Some desire a normal life after years of fighting; some still consider America and Karzai as enemies but do not want to be “tools of Pakistan and its intelligence service”.
“The sense of aggrieved nationalism is strong. “Even if you take me to Guantanamo or kill me,” said one man, “I will still say that this is our country. Come here in a polite way and you will be welcome. But come into our homes as you do – taking the men out and keeping the ladies inside – that is against our culture and our religion. The British and the Russians learned the hard way: if anyone comes here by force, they won’t be here for long.” ”
— Talking to the Taliban
Kate Clark
Monday 17th July 2006
New Statesman, UK
J.H. Bowden wrote: Unless, of course, you think the USSR was this great utopia (or just as bad) as the oppressive, liberal democracies that challenged it into bankruptcy.
Of course not. But you’ve got to admit that, under the atheistic soviets, women in Afghanistan were much better off than they were under the Islamist Taliban, who forced them into burqas under pain of death. Under the soviets, girls got an education, which came to an end when the mujaheddin (supported by us in the West — what shame!) came to power and prohibited girls from going to school.