CAN any rational humanist really want to cheerlead either the guys that throw acid in schoolgirls’ faces, or the men who killed dozens of Afghan civilians in an airstrike on two stolen fuel tankers last week? What I'm going to argue below is that such a choice represents a false counterposition for the left.
Following debates on this blog and over at Harry’s Place earlier this week, I intend to set out a third stance on the Afghanistan war, appealing to the arguments of both mainstream moral philosophy and the Marxist tradition.
Quite simply, if socialists offer nothing in advance of vicarious backing for large scale murder on either side, than our politics are pretty much redundant anyway. And irrespective of where one starts on the left-right spectrum, negotiated withdrawal and the advent of coalition government - inevitably including at least sections of the Taliban - is increasingly looking like the only reality-based prognosis.
Let's start by asking what is wrong with straightforward pacifism in this instance. Pacifism as a concept has obvious attractions for the left; it is honourable, internally coherent, and boasts a long tradition. It is, for example, an organic component of British Labourism. The majority of leftists would uphold a right to conscientious objection.
It is hard to imagine even the most rabid inhabitants of the Harry’s Place comments box would wade into a sincere Quaker opponent of the Afghanistan conflict with the same venom they apply to anyone else against the bloodshed.
I’ll even admit that my disquiet is semi-pacifist or perhaps three-quarters pacifist in inspiration. It would take a lot to make me support any war. War is always a bad thing. I do not believe this particular conflict should have be launched in the first place.
But I can envisage circumstances in which I would be prepared to take up arms. Moreover, we are faced here with an actual war situation, which leaves in inapplicable now battle has commenced. So pure pacifism ultimately fails.
There is another principles-based argument to be had from state sovereignty, and versions are sometimes advanced from those influenced by Stalinism. International law dictates that countries are not entitled to invade other countries, no matter how onerous the government, and most of the left will regard this heuristic as useful.
But again this cannot be decisive; any step that would have prevented the Rwanda genocide would surely have been morally correct, as would anything that could have stopped the slaughter in Darfur.
The main philosophical basis adopted by the pro-war left is so-called just war theory. The thought here is that there is a checklist of criteria for 'just war', and that Afghanistan ticked all the boxes.
Was the war lawfully declared by lawful authority? Were all other means of resolving tensions attempted first? Are the means employed proportionate? How good are the chances of success? The answers to these and similar questions will ultimately come down to opinion.
If I remember correctly, Blair explicitly invoked this doctrine by way of support for British participation in Afghanistan. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? It is ultimately rooted in the Catholicism of St Augustine, so the secular left has good reason to be wary of the underlying metaphysic.
More importantly, the pro-war left is inconsistent in its application. Why no strident calls military intervention in Burma? If the right of women to go unveiled merits regime change in Afghanistan, why didn’t the US topple the House of Saud decades ago?
Given the welter of conflicting principles on offer, the majority of the left prefers to base morality on weighing up the consequences of major political choices. Accordingly, the pro-war left has frequently invoked the introduction of liberal democracy to Afghanistan as reason to line up behind the war drive.
And the introduction of liberal democracy to Afghanistan would undoubtedly be a good thing. But if it ever does come, it will not come courtesy of the US military. We might want to call the idea that liberal democracy can be imposed by force of arms the Fukuyama Fallacy. It has been put to the test, and found wanting, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
With perhaps the sole historical - but nevertheless partial - exception of Japan, democracy has always arisen either organically or not at all. Few partisans of the October 2001 attack can look upon the putrid and corrupt vote-rigging government in Kabul with any sense of satisfaction.
What of outcomes less than full-blown democracy? Clearly, the invasion of Afghanistan and continuance of Taliban rule were two separate options. If option (a) leads to 100,000 deaths, and option (b) to 100,001 deaths, or even 500,000 deaths - to take numbers at random - than literal utilitarian calculation leads us to prefer option (a). But we cannot establish in advance which of the two choices is in fact option (a). What is more, there are other criteria that must come into play.
I locate my politics in the Marxist tradition, which makes the emancipation of the working class, on a global scale, the central concern. My objection to the ‘victory to the Taliban’ slogan put forward by sections of the far left is that I do not see how the Taliban’s victory advances the interests of ordinary working people.
The contention that it does is frequently made in terms of ‘anti-imperialism’, and this is undeniably pertinent. If imperialism is being used here as a synonym for the global capitalist system, than socialists naturally want to see it weakened.
But there is a separate debate to be had about exactly what ‘imperialism’ constitutes today, and how the definition differs from the one advanced by Lenin. The US is not in Afghanistan to exploit the consumer market, and it is difficult to maintain that such raw materials as the country does offer make direct occupation worthwhile.
And if it is a simple 'setback for imperialism' you want, there is still no reason to wave pom-poms for Afghanistan’s indigenous reactionary right. Negotiated withdrawal from Afghanistan will, in and of itself, represent a humiliating blow to US global hegemony.
Comparison is sometimes made between the Taliban and the FLN in Algeria or the NLF in Vietnam. The 1950s and 1960s left strongly solidarised with such forces. Should we not, by way of analogy, do the same for the Taliban?
No. While neither of these organisation qualified as exemplary democrats, they could broadly be classified as national liberation movements that were progressive in their historical context, especially in comparison to French colonialism or US military occupation.
The Taliban cannot be seen in similar light. Stories of the atrocities they perpetrate are of course exaggerated, but cannot be discounted. No humanist can easily countenance the triumph of forces that wilfully proclaim a project of implementing misogynist theocratic barbarism.
I can well anticipate the response the preceding paragraph will generate. I will inevitably be compared to the racist imperialists of the nineteenth century, who maintained that the British Empire was God’s way of civilising the Dark Continent. But that would be sheer misrepresentation. I do not for a minute doubt the Taliban’s intelligence, sophistication, or capacity for governance; on the contrary, these are precisely what I fear.
To chant 'victory to the Taliban' is a de facto call for the bloody repression of the Afghan working class and women's movement. Factor in the boost for reactionary Islamism - not least the central Asia domino effect - and the deficiencies of this slogan should be obvious to anyone possessed of elementary political sanity.
For Marxists and non-Marxists alike, consequentialist morality dictates that we take a hard look at the possibilities on offer in Afghanistan right now. Is the desire for western military victory anything more than wishful thinking? I talk to both former and serving military personnel in the course of my job as a journalist. Few of them have much confidence in ultimate success.
The realistic alternatives are decades of attrition or a negotiated pullout in favour of coalition government. We have been here many times before; that’s what former IRA leaders are doing in Stormont. The trick will be to split the Taliban and get the more moderate elements - if that’s the right word - round the negotiating table, and strike a deal with other local forces that will constrain their influence. But there are plenty of precedents.
Maybe - just maybe - a deal can be reached that will leave open the space in which an organised labour movement, feminists and a political left can begin to emerge. For socialists, that is no small concern. We certainly have no business advocating any political line that does not at least potentially open such doors.
But the whole situation is one in which there is no ideal outcome, and withdrawal will not bring peace. One way or another, the violence will continue. The trouble is, Afghanistan is now so badly broken that it is difficult to see what could possibly fix it.
In the interests of rational debate, I'd be happy to post reasoned responses to the above on this blog.
Posted at 22:58, 9 September 2009
Comments (79)
A fabled third position, or force eh? Did you watch the Quiet American (on this evening?)
There is no third option on the table. Communists are realists, guided by science and playing the cards dealt. What you propose is simply utopian.
No-one is 'cheerleading' 'the guys that throw acid in schoolgirls’ faces'. I am supporting the military struggle of a mob who contain some who have (and will again do)that - and quite possibly some of those who did that are now on the other side, even in government. This concept of military, not political support may be tough for many to understand but must still be remembered by ex-Trots. Why must you misrepresent communists?
It is always bemusing how it is the darkies who savagery is because they are backward or ,in this case apparently have 'darkly misogynist theocratic barbarism'. The US in Vietnam or the British in Malaya or Kenya where well schooled in the liberal arts and sciences and indeed used such to slaughter a lot more than killing people one by one with an AK47.
War is brutal, the innocent get killed but if you abandon those fighting to liberate themselves don't claim any Marxist influence (see recent comments on Marx and the First Indian War of Independence). The battle is enjoined. No fence sitting. Which side?
Somehow I know to any 'rationalist', the above won't meet the 'reasoned response' test. Good. That's because liberals and other dilettantes don't see reality
the Taliban’s victory
ignore last line - an 'orphaned' phrase
Dave, fair position, again my apologies if I misread you in the thread below, I might have misattributed Andy's view to you :(
"ignore last line - an 'orphaned' phrase"
Don't worry -- anyone with a fucking bit of sense ignores you -- you daft cunt.
Without equivocation the Taliban are reactionary.
In the end there will be a negotiated settlement, with elements of the Taliban.
The solution to Afghanistan's problems, aren't in its borders. Socialism in Pakistan and Iran, will do wonders. Revolution doesn't respect borders.
Will: Attack the idea, not the person.
Could Will also avoid using one of the defining characteristics of women as a swear word please ?
If I remember correctly, Blair explicitly invoked this doctrine by way of support for British participation in Afghanistan. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? It is ultimately rooted in the Catholicism of St Augustine, so the secular left has good reason to be wary of the underlying metaphysic.
What is specifically Catholic about St Augustine? He's a significant figure in both history and theory for plenty of Protestants and Orthodox as well.
Allocating to one branch of Christianity somebody who lived 700 years before the Great Schism and 1,200 years before the Reformation seems slightly...ahistorical.
A. Pedant
Unwitting throwback to my sectarian Protestant upbringing Rory. Everybody prior to Luther was a hellbound papist, as far as my mother was concerned.
Well summarised. There is not a dilemma here (that is, one of two choices) but a multiple set of issues that need answering.
The first is, I fail to see why anyone should feel inhibited about saying the Taliban are reactionary supporters of "misogynist theocratic barbarism".
Those who make excuses for the Taliban are trapped in two ways of thinking. Firstly, that any 'anti-imperialist' (that is, anti-US-led occupaition forces) is progressive. Secondly, the very British view that 'other' people (read 'lesser' in the terms it comes from, UK Imperialism) shouldn't be judged by universal values such as human rights, but have their 'own' culture in which such things as women's status and law are 'different'. The leftist version of this is widespread, and common to postmodernist relativists and 'anti-imperialists' alike.
There are, by contrast, many reasons to back a 'deontological' (that is from first principles of how we should act) ethics about the Taliban. That is, they are vicious anti-progressive bastards who merit their fate at the hands of anyone who atacks them. Anyone thinkign otherwise has to answer how they would not have let other examples of 'anti-imperialism' such as Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge have their way.
At the same time the 'consequentionalist' morality Dave mentions makes us think in the terms he advocates. I am not sure if I have any asnwer, or if there is one, to this: how to resolve the problem, how to end the occupation (which is also wrong, taking over people's ability to decide for themselves) without letting more reaction in.
But Dave's contribution has made us think about this.
Thoughtful article.
Though I think you have ignored Afghanistan’s crucial strategic geographical position.
I think you could have pointed out that ‘reactionary Islamism’ is being boosted by the occupations and not in spite of them.
I think you should entertain the possibility that this occupation could strengthen the Taliban and make them more popular than ever, both inside and outside the region.
I also think you are under the false impression that we can have any control over bourgeois foreign policy. If you accept the conquest of Afghanistan don’t complain when Bolivia is toppled.
The response of the left isn’t really about who governs Afghanistan but is about the battle against our own ruling class. To put this in a class context we can point out that these conquests have made British people more in danger from terrorism. We can point out that the self interest of our ruling class is being done at our huge expense and that these resources could be more usefully used, such as on Health care spending and better Public services or lower taxes.
Right you want a solution.
Give the United Nations more power and more democracy. Let all the nations of the world give up their armies to it and let it decide how to deal with international conflicts. A definite set of rules could be laid down to determine when it will intervene directly in the affairs of sovereign nations, when it will impose sanctions etc etc. This would strengthen it to tackle situations like Rwanda, which can never be solved by nations only interested in the self interest of their ruling elite.
Strengthen the international court of justice; don’t allow the USA, China or Israel to water it down so their crimes go unpunished.
To argue for the status quo is to argue for more Rwanda’s and is support for empires.
After all, who was it that said Spartacus was history’s greatest hero?
Start a campaign for this equitable solution. More World trade. Less World War.
Will you are tosser.
Someone on Harry's Place pointed out that there is a plan to build a gas pipeline all the way from the Caspian Sea to Western Europe. This will enrich all the usual people, and provides a very strong argument for subding the Afghan countryside. Then there are the strategic questions that james T mentions. I think he is being a bit idealistic to think that these hardbitten Islamacists will take any notice of the UN or infidel organisations. Why would you when you have Allah on your side? As got Southpaw Punch, haven't millions of Afghans voted with their feet? Or, doesn't that count?
Andrew Coates - Those who make excuses for the Taliban are trapped in two ways of thinking. Firstly, that any 'anti-imperialist' (that is, anti-US-led occupaition forces) is progressive.
Well maybe it is. I think the attempt in the post to ditinguish between good and bad national liberationist is bound to fail (Ho,Ho,Ho Chi Minh, how many Trots have you done in?)
Your second point seems to be a continuation of modernity's policy on the last thread of imputing views to the pro-Taliban brigade that he thinks they're stated view leads to. Noone is saying that democracy and freedom are only for rich white people, we just think that the occupation leaves them further away for Afghanistan.
Noone is really cheer-leading the Taliban. IA number of people have said a victory for them is the lesser evil, but there is also an argument about whether all the resistance is lumped together.
For example, I could argue with this: If imperialism is being used here as a synonym for the global capitalist system, than socialists naturally want to see it weakened. that socialists don't welcome economic crises, that it is an over-simplification.
Sue,
Your comments are racist.
Iran, for example has signed the Nuclear non proliferation treaty, Israel has not.
So my idea to hand more power to the united nations will be resisted by the world powers, the USA etc and not the smaller nations. This will not only show that these conquests have nothing to do with helping humanity but show that there actions are purely driven by self interest and explain why these conquests will fail.
My idea also challenges the apologists who support these actions.
So what is it aplogists, campaign for my idea or accept the status quo?
It seems to me that the following plans - "Let us fight fascism for liberal democracy" and "Death to the imperialist pipeline protectors" - only exist in the minds of commentators, and bear little relation to events occurring in reality.
The problem is that the actual plan being implemented is "Let's stumble around Afghanistan and Pakistan blowing up both Taliban nutters and civilians for the next decade while hoping that the corrupt, illiberal Afghan government can somehow turn the country into Massachusetts". This is the only offer presently on the table, and it means that the only strategic options that are worth discussing IMHO are -
1) Continue with the plan that has failed utterly for eight years;
2) Leave and hope whichever faction takes power is less horrible than the Taliban, or
3) Send thousands more men and machines into Afghanistan and win against an insurgency (note that history does not offer good odds on plans like this).
Plan 1 is obviously unworkable; Plan 2 may or may not have hideous results, and Plan 3 comes with an absolutely eye-popping price tag in blood and treasure. That means that Plan 3 is only on the table if we are willing to jack up taxes and tolerate many more military and civilian deaths.
Make of that what you will.
The only principled position is not to be allied to religious extremists be they Moslem Taliban, Jewish settlers in Hebron, anti-Tamil Buddhists politicians in Sri Lanka or Southern Baptists KKK in the US. That doesn't mean we have to support troops going in but we should support progressive movements worldwide. Religious groups are rarely progressive.
"illiberal Afghan government can somehow turn the country into Massachusetts"
I wish i'd thought of that line.
FlyingRodent, I think you are making the point that the invasion in the first place was insane and that those responsible should be held to account.
Arrest Tony Blair now and throw away the key.
Les,
"only principled position is not to be allied to religious extremists"
Pathetic. You reduce socialism to a sub sect of bourgeois interests.
To chant 'victory to the Taliban' is a de facto call for the bloody repression of the Afghan working class and women's movement. Factor in the boost for reactionary Islamism - not least the central Asia domino effect - and the deficiencies of this slogan should be obvious to anyone possessed of elementary political sanity.
Spot on. Also, I agree with the conclusion: on the need for a negotiated pullout in favour of a coalition government and hopefully a deal that will leave open the space in which an organised labour movement, feminists and a political left can begin to emerge.
What did I say that was racist? Please explain.
I've just read an item on CNN about teh Pakistani fight against the Taleban. Let's not forget they tried to take over the Swat Valley, leading to 500,000 people fleeing from them, that's how much they are loved. Apparently, the Pakistanis are setting up groups of irregulars called 'lashkars' to fight the Taleban and defend their villages. No doubt there are problems with this, but it does seem to me to be a form of self-defence.
Both Dave and Andrew Coates writings are full of high-blown theory (and it is good to go back to first principles and say ‘let's think about what we want’) but both fail the 'suck it and see test'.
Dave artfully puts up various theories (e.g. 'the just war') and then accurately knocks them all down. He ends badly by first accurately identifying what he will be criticised for and ends on a surreal note as first as an unrequested diplomatic advisor ("The trick will be to split the Taliban")
He then leaves planet Earth altogether – “Maybe a deal can be reached that will leave open the space in which an organised labour movement, feminists and a political left can begin to emerge.” Hmm.
US Lt Gen Hardy: I'm a bit embarrassed about this but I have been told, by that commie Hilary, to create a space for er, feminists. Mullah Talib: Feminines, what is this? Hardy: Well we don’t have them in Montana, but if you go to New York City - and I don't advise you ever do, I hate it - you see them and. Mullah: Ah yes, I know these. We don't have such degenerates here, but if we find, we kill. Hardy: That's fine. So I can say we agreed a space then, the cemetery. Great.
But at least it is an attempt. The consequence of Andrew Coates using terms such as 'consequentionalist' (doesn’t make my spellchecker) morality is to write inaccurate screed.
e.g. “Those who make excuses for the Taliban are trapped in two ways of thinking. Firstly, that any 'anti-imperialist' (that is, anti-US-led occupation forces) is progressive.”
Yes, they are (and incidentally if they were Uruguayan or Ugandan led occupation forces, it would still be so) through fighting for liberation. Monarchists fighting in the resistance in WW2 France were, for this, progressive.
And “Secondly, the very British view that 'other' people (read 'lesser' in the terms it comes from, UK Imperialism) shouldn't be judged by universal values such as human rights, but have their 'own' culture in which such things as women's status and law are 'different'. The leftist version of this is widespread and common to postmodernist relativists and 'anti-imperialists' alike.”
Some may but not, but this 'anti-imperialist', will not submit to second place behind Modernity, or anyone, in criticising the utterly reactionary character of, for example, the anti-women policies of the Taliban (whilst also being wary of some suspected lies put out by the coalition forces). I offer not an iota of political support for the Taliban (whatever that term may now mean). There is no holding back from universal (correct) values, e.g. women are equal to men.
Let’s have more big picture thinking. Back to first principles - good. Back to making excuses on why communists shouldn’t support resistance now, as it is formed – bad.
DB, The boost to ’reactionary Islamism’ comes from the occupations and conquests that you clearly support. Your neo liberal friends with your slavish following are boosting their numbers. That you fail to recognise this obvious fact show perfectly clearly that you are an out and out supporter of these adventures, and a supporter who looks through rose tinted glasses.
You are more neo liberal than the neo liberals.
Sue – your comments about hardbitten Islamacists not accepting infidel organisations shows your prejudice. Iran is a member of the UN; Israel won’t sign some of its treaties. You are a bigot.
And still the apologists stick by the status quo.
More power to the UN!
Thus far any number of arguments have been advanced in the comments boxes, either for a complete withdrawal of British troops, withdrawal of NATO troops, generalised approval for "the resistance" or more openly approving of a Taliban victory.
On top of that there have been serving nationalist and parochial arguments put forward, below is a sampling from the other thread:
SkidMarx: "I'd rather see a victory for the Taliban than a continuation of that occupation."
Paddy Garcia: "I don't support the Taliban politically but as far as their military tenacity, bravery and prowess I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for them."
Exile: "Think about it - does the war against a bunch of inbred primitives in Afghanistan help you to get a bastard job in Britain? Does it reduce the price of your beer or get you a council house? How about leg-overs, blokes? Are your middle legs getting more exercise thanks to this lunacy?"
JamesT: "I think a victorious resistance would join the anti imperialist alliance that Chavez and friends have established. I think this would be more beneficial than the occupation of people trying to exploit the country and its people."
JimD: "What a load of hot air and putrid apology for conquest and oppression."
Southpawpunch: "Victory to the resistance, which in this case means, in practical terms, 'Victory to the Taliban'. "
Southpawpunch: "Yes,if the Taliban comes to power they will use the state apparatus to up their killing rate (although, unless the civil war continues it won't be as high) but the victory of national self determination lays a lot greater chance of progressive forces emerging than, than continuing occupation does."
Red Deathly: "I think we'd just as well be off debating whether the Blues or the Greens should have won the Nika riots..."
Andy Newman: "In this context, the Britsh government shoudl recognise that its military coontribution cannot resoolve the situation, and the loss of British lives is unjustified. So Britain should withdraw."
I have tried to be charitable and include in the political arguments, but as you'll see from that thread it was a bit of a car crash.
Please do read that thread again and see what a terrible mishmash of incoherent thoughts are expressed, http://www.davidosler.com/2009/09/victory_to_the_taliban_open_th.html
PS: I have no doubt people will say they were quoted out of context, misquoted, not quoted at all, but readers can make their own minds up on that, by re-reading the thread.
You guys are completely off planet you know - and seem to spend more time arguing with each other than about the reality of war, crazed primitive religion and death in Afghanistan. I can see why the site is dedicated to Comrade Spart.
And Modernity thinks George Bush is the great hero of liberation.
Make of that what you will all leftists.
Modernity takes selcted quotes and doesn't look into the overall argument, how suspiciously similar to the tactics of online zionists.
make of that what you will all leftists.
Marko,
"Pathetic. You reduce socialism to a sub sect of bourgeois interests."
You could be right, but I don't know as I don't understand your statement, but it does sound very Marxist so well done.
JamesT - I don't think SueR's comment was racist. Maybe you should save the accusation for a time when you can back it up.
Siggy - it may have escaped your notice that we are arguing with each other about the reality of war, crazed primitive religion and death in Afghanistan.
JimD - I dunno, maybe modernity has provided a reasonable summary of soundbites. He accurately quotes my contribution, which I'd stand by, and the quote from Andy Nutman seems genuine, given the usual spelling mistake(in this case "resoolve").My complaint was that modernity doesn't provide an argument of his own, perhaps he's so modern he is post-argument.
DaveO - The realistic alternatives are decades of attrition or a negotiated pullout in favour of coalition government... The trick will be to split the Taliban and get the more moderate elements - if that’s the right word - round the negotiating table, and strike a deal with other local forces that will constrain their influence.
Relying on the same imperialists that are messing up the country to broker a deal between the corrupt politicians and warlords they're currently backing and the evil theocrats? Not so Marxist.
Not so Marxist, maybe. But the better plan is?
Modernity,
Instead of proposing ideas, engaging in the argument or offering opinions you trawl through previous comments, picking out random snippets to use this to justify, what?
That the wars and bloodshed should be supported is all I can infer as your preferred option.
The quote you used from me was a deliberately risible response to your equally risible question but as someone who cannot see the economic benefits of the Caspian sea then I am not surprised you cannot understand this.
At least others, such as Johnny UK, who share your neo liberal world view try to put their case backed up by arguments.
Skid,
SueR is showing prejudice. She attributes to 'Islamists' a refusal to engage with the UN when the facts tell a different story. This coupled with her other ramarks convince me she is bigotted.
Dave -the better plan. Make the UN the world policeman.
the better plan. Make the UN the world policeman.
So the US can use it as a fig-leaf. Maybe not.
But the better plan is?
Get the troops out. That will, in and of itself, represent a humiliating blow to US global hegemony.
SkidMarx:
Get the troops out. That will, in and of itself, represent a humiliating blow to US global hegemony.
Osler:
Negotiated withdrawal from Afghanistan will, in and of itself, represent a humiliating blow to US global hegemony.
Uncanny, no?
This discussion is off the planet. The post is off the planet. Dave. you disgrace yourself. Most of this debate seems to ignore that there is politics in Afghanistan itself. Anyone ever met an Afghani?
Split the taliban? spoken like General McChrystal himself... although of course, the Taliban is all ready split. There is no singular.
The debate here seems to assume that the west has a god given right to negotiate the nature of the government and the terms of its withdrawal. Bollocks to that.
The bottom line for me is that all western troops should be out ... now. Preferably by the force of their 'home' populations.
Afghanistan is a country that will brook no invaders. Does no one get that? Victory to the taliban? only nutters say that. negotiated settlement? only nutters say that.
I just read this again, Dave. It's rubbish. You expect the negotiated settlement (very Lord Mountbatten of you) to produce a space (seemingly separate from the politics of the settlement) for blah blah blah (insert preferred liberal sentiment here).
The future of Afghanistan can only be in the hands of the Afghanis rejecting the invasion and rejecting the corrupt president and rejecting the fundamentalists.
you all sound like tin-pot generals.
Also this discussion ignores the opportunity cost of 'liberation'.
Let me explain, when the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq took place, in the Congo a civil war was raging. People were being hacked to death with machetes, why were the pro war lobby not calling for an immediate invasion of the Congo to save the poor oppressed Congolese from barbarism?
Why are the pro war left just following the interests of the ruling class?
Marcus, not everyone is voicing the same opinions here. So don't lump everyone is the same box.
The Taliban cares not one iota for high discourse or low policy. Of course they can do all the things Dave fears -- effectively govern etc etc. The Left will continue to do what it's always done: romanticize the 'other' and indulge in exoticism.
Dave once made a semi-coherent point that Afghanistan gives every appearance of being unconquerable. It stands. The Taliban will win, their time horizons and constituencies aren't looking at historical processes the way the Left and its adherents are.
They've already won.
Skidmarx,
If you had bothered to read my first post in this debate you would see that I wish the UN to be radically changed. Obviously the UN as world policeman would be the radically changed UN.
I would like to thank everyone for their responses to the quotes from their own words, but complain all you like those are your words. You are politicos and you should learn to express yourselves better, if you think you are hard done by.
But as I said before, this should have been an exchange of views, comradely views, done in the spirit of fraternalism, but instead it often dissents into a lumpen petty bourgeois slanging match, which in the end makes the participants look silly and their supposed politics even worse.
Leaving aside Dave's proposal, which has merit, let's all agree NATO should leave quickly, but what then?
What then? The existing Afghan government folds like a pack of cards, thru bribes or threats, and the Taliban return to Kabul within two+ months.
Then they'll instigate their brutal misogynistic theocratic rule again, 10,000s of Afghans will rush to refugee camps outside of the country and those remaining will suffer the most barbaric regime, ever seen.
Capital punishment will be instigated again in football stadiums, and when you are sitting at home or in the pub cheering the defeat of the supposed "imperialism" in Afghanistan you'll be able to look up on YouTube as some poor woman or man having their head shot off, for contravening 13th century medievalism.
You will from the West be able to see the brutalism of the Taliban regime as it spreads, apostates killed, hung in crude executions. Women stoned or their fingers cut off for wearing nail varnish.
Girls and women beaten for daring to leave the house.
Music banned completely. Afghan gays risk having a wall tumbled on top of them, for existing.
People will starve, as the economy in Afghanistan atrophies, and if any food aid arrives it will be used to bribe sections of the population and punish those who the Taliban hate.
As the minorities, which make up some 60% of the Afghan population will be dominated by the Taliban, they will be physically attacked, killed in great numbers and beaten into submission.
With the Taliban in charge, the West (yes, that includes you, as well as Gordon Brown) will wash their hands of Afghanistan, mumble about 19th century battles, how they must sort it out for themselves, even if that means hundreds of thousands dying in the process.
You will be able to follow all this from the Internet, pictures will be released, harrowing tales of survivor's experiences, and all because Westerners didn't value lives of Afghan's as they do their own.
All because universalism seems to apply to those in the metropolitan cities in Britain and beyond, but not in Afghanistan.
And if you doubt that will occur, then plainly tell us, in your own words, what you expect to happen once NATO forces leave?
Tell us, so you can be reminded of those words when Afghan refugees fill the newspapers with their stories of the Taliban's barbarism.
Tell us, comrades, what will happen when the Taliban takes over and how it is none of your concern.
Modernity,
Tell us what will happen if they stay. More troops killed, more Afghans massacred, more deals with the Taliban. More wasted resources that could be better spent on AIDS research or helping the worlds poor.
Why were you not calling for intervention in the Congo. What about the bloodshed there. Tell us all what could have been achieved by not invading.
Tell us how the interests of the US help consolidate the power of the Saudi regime to do all the things you have righteously listed.
Tell us how these occupations have increased Islamic fundamentalism and that continued occupation will increase it more.
Tell us how the rise of fascist groups like the EDL are a result of neo liberal foreign policy.
Come on mystic modernity what does your crystal ball say.
The west has finite resources, the US has overstretched itself. These finite resources could be put to better use, could better serve humanity. Please tell us the calculations that say this squandering is any good for humanity as a whole.
The US only picks on countries that are defenceless (they only invaded Iraq because it didn't have weapons of mass destruction), which has encouraged some states to develop yet more weapons. The whole neo liberal project that you demonstrably support to the hilt has failed miserably. Only the raving loonies who got us into this (they have to say) and idiots like you can't see that.
What then? The existing Afghan government folds like a pack of cards, thru bribes or threats, and the Taliban return to Kabul within two+ months.
While I'm not advocating withdrawal myself I don't think you can assume that this would neccessarily be the outcome.
Andrew Adams,
Fine, then clearly state it or tell me your thoughts on how it could unfold?
My bet is that we'll get to see soon enough. Western leaders will pull out when they can, in my view.
Then you and others can ponder what the Taliban are, for the second time around.
There were some rather appalling books on the first Taliban regime, but I doubt that Western "anti-imperialists" tend to want to know about that period.
Andrew, you could even do a post on it :)
Mod...
Irony.
On the substance of your post, Modernity, you write that Gordon Brown would "wash [his] hands of Afghanistan". If you perceive him to be that callous, what motivation do you think is keeping him - well, British soldiers - there now? If, as many of us believe, they remain for cynical interests - resources, say - it seems hard to see why a British/US presence in the country is beneficial.
For most who want to leave Afghanistan - which doesn't, I'll admit, include some in these threads - it's not a question of "not valu[ing] [the] lives of Afghan's as [they] do [their] own"; it's a crushingly depressing reality that sometimes we don't have the means to improve terrible situations (you should understand this rationale - it's the same that, for example - would lead you to oppose an invasion of North Korea; one assumes that this isn't due to your failure to apply universalism).
The US/NATO has going for it, unlike the Soviets, no foreign power is susidizing the Taliban, like the US did before. The empire is not crumbling like Russia was.
The Taliban are adept at guerilla warfare. In the end the US will negotiate with some Taliban elements.
Modernity: The best hope for Afghanistan, is socialist Pakistan and Iran.
OK,
the logic of the situation:
1) NATO stays, slaughter continues, a viscious and authoritarian regime rules in Kabul.
2) NATO goes, slaughter continues, an even more viscious and authoritarian regime may rule in Kabul.
1a) NATO stays, and fights the taleban to defeat.
1a - of course, is the one consonant with just war theory, the requirement to have a prospect of success. Given the recent example of Sri Lanka, we'd have to be prepared for drastic measures to actually militarilly defeat the Taleban (and the local warlords). Thus, I think 1a is unlikely, or unattainable.
So we're left with two viscious choices, now, the cigarette paoper's worth of difference between them may be worth fighting over; but I suspect that what it means is we need to redefine the question.
That is, we need to stop seeing Afghanistan in terms of isolation and in/out, we need to consider the question of the general demilitarisation of the world and the sort of economic engagement that draws people out from the shadow of the warlords and gunmen.
Modernity,
I am suspicious of anyone who claims to know with any degree of certainty how things will unfold if we withdraw, or indeed if we stay in.
Karzai and his warlord chums are showing no inclination to give up power by democratic means and I hardly think they would give it up lightly if our forces withdrew. The Taliban currently gain support from some Afghans who do not share their ideology but oppose the presence of foreign forces.
That's not to say the scenario you outline is impossible, and on balance I think we should remain, with the caveat that we must learn from the mistakes of the last eight years. If we don't, and we carry on as we are with yet more Afghans deing killed either by the Taliban or by allied forces as well as the deaths of many more of our own troops....well I don't find that easy to defend.
I'm well aware of the evils of the previous Taliban regime, there is no need to point it out to me. But that is not in itself a sufficient argument for military action - if it were then we would be invading Burma or any other country with an appalling human rights record. However noble your motives you have to balance them against what you can realistically hope to achieve. There are some pro-war types who want to see a massive escalation in military action with no consideration for the likely consequences. This is just as irresponsible as the "anti-imperialist" position.
So while I disagree with those who say we should withdraw now I don't consider their position to neccessarily be a dishonorable one, nor do I think they are in any way sympathetic to the Taliban.
Clive won the battle of Plassey in his "military campaign" for the conquest of India by bribing one important bunch of soldiers to stop fighting.
Would n't it be better to bribe Afghans (who probably don't see their primary allegiance as any "nation" anyway) to sit it out.Paying them to protect you while you build infrastructure like roads,dams and irrigation channels might work on the hearts and minds level.After all Najibullah ,a modernising leftie did have support until the not really grown up Americans armed Islamic fundamentalists with Stinger missiles to down Russian helicopters .
(We should also give market guarantees for the opium crop [ with an Opium marketing Board/ Orwell's dad worked for something similar in India] using all of it in Western hospitals)
The land over/under which any oil pipelines pass should be subject to ground rent paid to local people in the old Henry George system so if the flow is sabotaged nobody gets any rent along the entire length)
A big part of the comparatively recent surge in support for Islam comes from the perceived failure of Socialism (as in Northern Ireland).A lot of people post-war saw Socialism as the way forward,only to be ruined economically with nothing in return except disrespectful children and untrustworthy wives .Afghanistan was a favourite tourist destination for hippies then backpackers,comparatively spoiled indolents whose libertarian freedoms to lie around taking drugs and screwing was not a good advert for Western freedoms.
What a moralist DBC Reed is. How does he knowd how the Afghans perceived young Europeans who visisted their country, bring oddles of cash? They might have thought it was a vastly preferable lifestyle, and been envious. Anyway, I'm not hear to defend hippies, I just didn't lkike the assumption of superiority at the end of his contribution. My real purpose in adding my two pennyworth this morning is that I have just read an item on teh BBC website, entitled 'Civil servant and weekend jehadi', or something like that. The BBC reporter spoke to a man who works as a civil servant in Kabul during the week, but at weekends travels back to his home village and transforms himself into a jehadi. According to him, there are many similar who are motivated by relgious reasons, dislike of foreign troops, hatred of the corruption in the Government, general anomie etc etc. Surely, that is one of the problems, the Afghan state commands no loyalty because it is so corrupt. In Pakistan, the people of the Swat Valley welcomed a fundamentalist takeover at first because they were sick and tired of the corruption in the Pakistani state. They changed their minds after umpteen beheadings and floggings. Looks to me that the peasants of the Muslim world are between the devil and the deep blue sea. How do the inhabitants of these places raise their consciousnesses to tackle these questions? With the lack of economic development, will it ever be possible for them to act independently of the global forces swirling around them? And, yet, how can they develop economically when the society is so unstable. Does anyone have any ideas?
Dave - uncanny,no. Cut and paste irony, yes.
Marcus- yes I have met an Afghani. Not for a while.
Jamie T - sorry I missed your original post, but the argument is still much the same. There have been many proposals to make the UN a more representative organisation. It ain't gonna happen. It's function is to provide cover for US imperialism, and to a much lesser extent the activities of other Security Council members, they aren't going to give up that power for the same reason the US government doesn't allow its soldiers to be covered by international war crimes legislation.
Modernity - things might get worse in the way you describe if the occupying forces pull out. But their presence makes it impossible for political development to take place, and feeds the very reactionary forces you most object to.
"I am suspicious of anyone who claims to know with any degree of certainty how things will unfold if we withdraw, or indeed if we stay in."
Touche Andrew Adams,
You're absolutely right.
We can't learn anything from history, a week in politics is a long time, it's near impossible to do political analysis and know what's going to happen in future, so why bother? Hmm.
Forgive me, if I previously put it in very stark terms but I wanted people to connect with the fate of Afghans and so they would be able to reflect on it in the future, to see that our fates are intertwined or at least our common humanity should be.
Modernity - if you join the army you could travel to exotic lands, meet interesting people, and kill them.
skidmarx, and if you sit on your arse, you can sneer at people from a distance, it is rather apolitical and a waste of your fine education, but it suits you :)
Red Deathy comes near to what I think, apart from the fact that whatever we think is pretty irrelevant to what will happen in Afghanistan.
Just to make the choices even more vicious though: withdrawing US etc troops will not leave Afghanistan an isolated country where the people will have to sort things out for themselves.
Western interests will still have a presence (economically and no doubt through clandestine influence via politicians etc), regional powers, Iran, Pakistan and Tajekistan, have strong interests and linguistic-cultural-political ties, and the Talbian have their own connections to other Jihadis across an even wider area. All of these forces have shaped the situation as it is unfolding. It is ridiculous just to focus on the US-UK etc. occupying presence.
Most of us are against the Occupation. But thinking that the old 'bashing a few heads together' when withdrawal looms will make anyone a reasonable coalition is not much of an answer. Apart from the external interests I cited, two elements, Islamicist Reaction and Warlord Oppression, would play a big part in any outcome. Not a good prospect.
Perhaps there simply is no prospect of even a relatively good outcome.
Modernity - see that apolitical sneering? That's you,that is.
No skidmarx.
I am not middle class, unlike you, but what you mistake for my sneering is, in fact, class- conscious contempt for political BS, like this:
The implication of "makes it impossible for political development to take place" seems to be, should the Taliban (or someone else) take over then "political development" might take place??
How exactly would "political development" take place, when the Taliban are vehemently opposed to any form of progress, and with their eventual monopoly of armed force, they would shoot, kill, dismember anyone that tries to bring about "political development", that is their nature, as reactionaries.
Unless, of course, you, skidmarx, could explain how "political development" is possible under a reactionary theocratic Taliban regime and why it won't be violently opposed by them?
We can't learn anything from history, a week in politics is a long time, it's near impossible to do political analysis and know what's going to happen in future, so why bother? Hmm.
I didn't say we shouldn't bother - please note the phrase "with any degree of certainty". Where the consequences of our actions are unpredictable it is wise to accept that, but it doesn't mean you can't speculate about the possibilities. And one possibility if we pull out is that the Taliban will re-take control of the country, but it isn't the only one.
Oi, Morality, I'm more working class than you.
And I 'sneer' a lot less.
Modernity is utterly obsessed with the middle class and he's got a really creepy stalker thing about people that have been to university.
His social skills are non existent, one of those sociopaths on the internet you want to steer clear of.
Eddie, on the contrary, I don't mind people that have been to University.
I like informed, humorous and well read people. I have no problem with Dave O, Coatesy, SocialRepublican, Stroppy or even Red Deathly, etc, all university educated, but without too many of those nasty additional habits that you find amongst the middle-classes in all their forms.
But, of course I do, as a member of the under classes, get a bit annoyed with that ex-student political culture which increasingly dominates much of the discourse found on the British Left nowadays.
I come from an older generation when trade unionism was a major part of the Left, and there has been a considerable change in attitudes in the past 20-30 years.
Nowadays, as I see it, there is more ex-student politics, more Public school snobbery, more "we are the political priest" class, the leaders and the led, and cos I think politics is *not* just the preserve of the middle classes and the rich I believe those attitudes should change, as the Left is small enough as it is. It is rather off putting.
I think the problem is, that a lot of the middle class ain't use to people talking back to them, maybe it is the education they received at Public schools, taught to be leaders?
Or it could be the indoctrination/conditioning at University, but that inability to discuss politics with people, as equals, is noticeable, if you have a certain type of, er, class consciousness.
I am sure not everyone would see that, but introspection is not as common as it should be. Thankfully, not everyone from the middle classes have these poor attitudes, but you do find it more and more on the British Left.
Eddie, I am more than happy to be civil and exchange ideas, not insults, but I do find these lower middle class habits unnecessary.
If you doubt me, look in at Socialist Unity they have a thread related to poor attitudes, altho they probably won't see them in such stark class terms as I do. There is a certain type of class blindness on the Left, particularly when the focus is placed on the middle classes, their attitudes and interactions with others. Funny that?
John Sullivan makes a similar point:
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Sectariana/Pub.html#Conclusion
Modernity,
My father was a shop convenor, I went to a comprehensive school and then to university and just because I don't share the same politics as you doesn't make me a prawn sandwich eater. Got it?
As for public school boys, most of them will undoubtedly be the biggest neo liberals on the face of the earth. But don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
Red Deathy said,
"That is, we need to stop seeing Afghanistan in terms of isolation and in/out, we need to consider the question of the general demilitarisation of the world and the sort of economic engagement that draws people out from the shadow of the warlords and gunmen."
This can only be achieved by defeating the imperialists hell bent on serving their own interests. A socialist USA or Britain would be even better than a socialist Iran or Pakistan.
Now lets have a debate about the English Defence League. Can Modernity, Coates etc please tell me where their views differ from the goals of the EDL. On which points do they disagree with them about Islam.
I say debate because other than calling everyone who disagrees with him a public school boy, Mod didn't respond to any point raised on my previous comment. This seems to be his normal tactic, sneering from the sidelines.
Modernity - have you any greater evidence that I am middle-class than you do for any of your more politcal jibes?
The implication of "makes it impossible for political development to take place" seems to be, should the Taliban (or someone else) take over then "political development" might take place??
Yes. While the country is occupied there is a continual supply of credibility to those fighting a jihad against them. Unless you think that Muslims are a monolithic bloc of nutters who can't be trusted unless the enlightened West is pulling the strings a withdrawal has to be an improvement.[There was incidentally a report on the BBC yesterday that worldwide support for al-Qaida has dropped, perhaps as a result of their indiscrimate violence, so maybe there is hope that even if the Taliban were to return to power in some form they might not be so barbarous as before]
Unless, of course, you, skidmarx, could explain how "political development" is possible under a reactionary theocratic Taliban regime and why it won't be violently opposed by them?
I think they would violently oppose the sort of political development we'd like to see, but there is a tide in the affairs of men that taken at its flood leads on to glory.
See, I rest my case.
JimD's inability to *read*, or consider that other people's views might have some merit in politics is rather prevalent and just one very small reason why the British Left, and in particular the "anti-imperialists", continue to be so small.
PS: Anyone interested in my views on neo-fascists and the EDL could simply type, EDL in the search box on my blog. I have blogged a fair few times recently on that topic. Simple enough to find.
PPS: Just in case you wondered, I tend, mostly, to ignore middle class cranks, and their mates.
Mod is spot on about the EDL and the BBC invite to Griffin to appear on QT. And on the Vestas workers too. Well we agree on something! :-)
I assume modernity's last comment refers to JimD and not to my last comment.
I didn't attend a public school, but don't let ignorance get in the way of your diatribe.
I think the problem is, that a lot of the middle class ain't use to people talking back to them
Well,guvnor, I ain't noticed you put up a lorra,lorra argument, and have been asking you to put up more. But then I ain't middle-class.
Lenin talked of these attitudes when he wrote:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html
Mod,
You haven't told us your views, only intimated that you support the occupation of countries and the mass slaughter of people to prevent Islamic extremism. You go further than the EDL. You want the de Islamification of the Middle East, never mind Europe!
Then you accuse everyone of being middle class who doesn't support your neo liberal world outlook. You have failed to address any points anyone makes, you just throw mud and all one can do is throw it back.
You even claim those that don't support your view are public school boys when the vast majority of public school boys support your point of view.
You are a waste of space. The idea of you standing shoulder to shoulder with Muslims against the EDL would be a joke, you wouldn't do it. You would call it studentism or petty bourgeois or some other shit. I don't know if Lenin had a word for people like you, maybe "A group of pseudo intellectual bloggers pontificating about everything but doing nothing".
Incidentally, currently there is a catastrophic drought in Kenya and ethnic tensions are rising. Should the West directly intervene, or divert resources to help these people?
Paddy,
Well I am glad we can agree on one or two things, but please, could you take JimD aside and explain the basics of reading, it might help him a bit :)
Also, Paddy, if you get the chance please could you direct JimD, to Trotsky's work on Fascism
I fear no matter what I say JimD will never understand, but this is a helpful introductory bit:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
Of course, you have to use your imagination, but many of those arguments advanced by Trotsky are applicable today, but instead of shouting "social fascist" at people what you get "You want the de Islamification of the Middle East" and other silly comments being made.
Modernity,
you are an arse. It is impossible to debate anything with you (I have tried) because you ignore debate completely, you just go completely off topic and into irrelevant abstract crap. All that is left is to reduce the argument to your level and throw insults.
I mean you call us public schoolboys when you are the one with neo liberal public schoolboy views.
Hello,
Onload of page my antivirus put alert, check pls.
I don't know JimD personally so doubt Ill be able to so so. But as a public school and university educated Trot, who unlike you doesn't hold neo liberal views on foreign policy Ill direct you to a definition of revolutionary defeatism which after all is the issue in question here:
"Revolutionary Defeatism
A concept made most prominent by Vladimir Lenin in World War I, Revolutionary Defeatism is based on the Marxist idea of class struggle. Arguing that the proletariat could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle. Workers would gain more from their own nations' defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.
Initially rejected by all but the more radical at the socialist Zimmerwald Conference in 1915, the concept appears to have gained support from more and more socialists, especially in Russia in 1917, after it was forcefully reaffirmed in Lenin's April Theses and Russia's war losses continued. "
How very transgressive for a public-school, university educated Trot to be living on a council estae and involved in community politics. Wow!! (You're not my brother-in-law are you?). You and Southpaw Punch are a fine pair. I put it down to Oepidal drives against your father, you want to kill him and shag your mother, and that anger, which you can't deal with, spills over into undirected (and unacted upon?) violence. you have know idea what it is like to be workingclass, or how the w2orking class movement works. On a higher level, I read an article on the 'Revolutionary History' site teh other day, which pointed out that Lenin's call for 'Revolutionary Defeatism' was in the context of the First World War, between developed industrial, imperialist states. That is not the situation that we have here. Did you see the Guardian or Times colour magazine yesterday? There was an article about the custom in Afghanistan of sexually enslaving young boys and forcing them to act as women, but dancing to entertain and by providing sexual favours. Presumably, the boy acts as the recipient (the catamite), as that is regarded as less abhorrent. The man hosting the part was a former Taliban commander, who had changed sides (a bloke who knows where his bread is buttered.). I have no problem with such quaint customs, live and let live I say, but I don't see how such people will construct a just and equal Afghanistan. However, I do know that NATO has no interest either in such a thing. To quote another of Lenin's slogans, 'What is to be done?'.
Just so everyone's quite clear: Im *not* "Jim D".
I am Jim Denham. I think the Taleban must be defeated at all costs. I think Paddia Garcia and anyone else who supports a Taliban victory should be summarily executed. Preferably by a firing squad made up of Afghani women.
And while Jim is fantasising about all the people he'll have shot after the AWL takes power, perhaps he'd like to reflect on how his tendency has degenerated into cheerleading imperialist armies, and demanding that Third World peoples be "liberated" by means of cluster bombs and white phosphorus.
Or, since he's so concerned about Afghan women, perhaps he might explain why Malalai Joya has been calling for an end to the occupation.
Just a point in passing in response to Sue R's criticism of an allegedly moralistic line: it is more the Islamic fundamentalists who tend to be moralistic.
The Bali bomber objected to the "free sex" of western and Australian tourists and that they did not "cover their private parts"
A plot to bomb the Ministry of Sound nightcub in London was justified by one of those involved saying that the intended victims would not be considered innocent because so many were "slags dancing about".
Thanks Jim, you are the first person to have ever called for my execution I am really honoured :-)
As far as Sue is concerned, I am aware of the context in which Lenin called for Revolutionary defeatism. That was the way it was then, nowadays don't you think that the victory of a poor oppressed nation like Afganistan or Iraq against imperialism would be a victory for the international working class?
Don't you and others here not support a peoples right to fight back against a brutal racist colonial invader who is deliberately murdering thousands of innocent civilians?
Perhaps the real problem is the underlying belief that the West has to have a 'plan' for countries like Afghanistan. Imperialism has caused many of the problems that afflict Afghanstan and so many other countries. Why does the British government, let alone the British far left, have to have a 'plan' for Afghanistan? Haven't you done enough damage?
Also the neo liberal project is an alleged moral project. To help oppressed women, to help oppressed peoples under brutal dictators etc. We should be aware of course that this moralism is complete bollocks and just a cover story to entice the more idiotic among us. (you know who your are -Modernity, Jim Denham etc)
Jim Denham said,
"Just so everyone's quite clear: Im *not* "Jim D".
I am Jim Denham."
You missed off the end "and I am an alcoholic".
SueR - actually (see the discussion in an episode of The Sopranos) "pitching" generally seems less abhorrent in homophobic circles than "catching".
In many ways I'm not surprised that the discussion here is getting diverted. The main point of the NATO cheerleaders is to say: Look the Taliban are the most awful people ever, can't you see that Afghanistan will descend into a barbarity from which it will never recover? To which Laurel & Jihadi respond: yes we realise the Taliban aren't nice people, but occupation only increases the identification of liberal values with the arrogance and impunity of occupiers,and while the return to power of the Taliban might be one unfortunate consequence of the foreign invasion and then a withdrawal, to suggest that that is the end of Afghan history is to think that Afghanistan is not part of a global economy and can just cut itself off from world political developments [maybe this isn't agreed on the anti-war side but is just the Cliffite in me speaking.I realise that the Khmer Rouge managed to cut Cambodia off from the world for a while, again after massive US bombing made such irrationality seem rational, but it really can't last as a ruling class strategy]. And then the pro-war commenters come back with: no, you just don't see how 7th century and evil the Taliban are, you must all be really bad people to have such bad thoughts.
And our poor host discovers that if you stand in the middle of the road you get hit from both sides.
This thread is a wonderful example,(ok, a terrible one but I hope you'll see the point?) of why the British Left do so badly.
From petty insults to missing the human side of the Afghans, bags of irrelevances to language and terms which are largely indecipherable to those outside of the University set.
If that's how it looks from the inside, just imagine what anyone looking in would think? Hmm.
Then again to students, ex students, members of insignificant political groupings, ex-members, ex-culties it all probably looks too familiar? Such dialogues can be seen on the Premier Left blog, Socialist Unity on a weekly, if not daily basis.
Pity that.
modernity - petty insults,bags of irrelevance,indecipherable terms?
Once again, that's you that is.
I hear Godzilla's been complaining that some monster's been rampaging round Tokyo.
Modernity,
will you stop talking about yourself. And rethink your debating style if you think it such a problem.
Anyway, most opinion polls say that most Brits want troops out of Afghanistan, so we are with the public on this one. You are the marginalised one.
Denham -What if the Afghan women want to stone people to death rather than by firing squad, will you allow them this retreat to barbarism? (just a joke for your neo liberal prejudice)
Morality, you're funny.