Who’s right?
by Gadgie, 12 December 2007
Make your own mind up.
In Afghanistan there is no realistic mission, no achievable objective, no long-term strategy, only the fruitless pursuit of failure.
Almost universally, the Afghans I know see the presence in their country of foreign military and assistance workers as a necessary means to an end. Some of them even agree that if the foreigners left today, Afghanistan would collapse tomorrow.
A clue:
Anja Havedal has been living and working in Afghanistan since May 2006.
Wednesday 12 December 2007 at 16:55
But the two statements are not incompatible, that is the problem. Those of us who have worked in and care about Afghanistan have been saying for years that the west’s strategy was wrong. Brown has gone some way towards recognising that today, but an awful lot of lives have been wasted in the meantime.
Wednesday 12 December 2007 at 22:10
Conor’s right that it’s possible to have these two propositions coexisting, but Jenkins doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s just making it up as he goes along.
Anja’s actually being quite cautious in her estimation of Afghan opinion. I now have a baker’s dozen of focus group analysis and nation-wide public opinion polls from Afghanistan - including the most intensive surveys ever conducted in the history of Central Asia - and all the data shows a broadly committed, optimistic and pro-democracy Afghan populace, supportive even of the Yanks, who tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
Conor is not quite right, either, about “the west’s strategy.” The Afghanistan compact is signed by 60-plus countries, including several Arab and Muslim countries. The UN Security Council includes countries that are not in “the West.” NATO is a “western” alliance, but it’s leading ISAF only because it can, and because most of the ISAF armies are NATO-affliates.
It’s also logically impossible to say that the various military, diplomatic and development approaches taken in Afghanistan have resulted in more lives lost than would have otherwise occurred under some other scenario. To the extent that we can reasonably speculate about such matters is only because of the advantage of hindsight.
I’m a bit surprised by the all the hubbub over Brown’s statements. “If they [the Taliban] are prepared to renounce violence and abide by the constitution and respect basic human rights then there is a place for them in the legitimate society and economy of Afghanistan,” he said, and everybody rushes to their laptops to file to the foreign desk by deadline. It’s silly.
The policy Brown articulated is precisely the policy that has obtained in Afghanistan from the earliest days of UNAM, and it has been Karzai’s policy from the day he took office.
Several thousand armed militants have been demobilized over the past three years.
And by the way: We’re winning. I am tempted to say we’ve already won, actually. Now it’s all about holding ground, rebuilding, and keeping the fascists at bay.
Wednesday 12 December 2007 at 23:32
It pains me to agree with Terry on this, but agree I must.
Brown has clearly heeded wise counsel, which must be a first for him. The new PM is not known for taking others seriously, and in recent times he has made a complete arse of himself on a number of issues. This week, however, Brown has made a number of positive statements on the situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and articulated and reinforced longstanding policy.
As for the media coverage, it looks like the BBC’s Newsnight is now the only high-profile outlet in the UK for serious analysis of international affairs. Take the programme’s diplomatic editor Mark Urban, for example. May others correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t watch television as a rule, and rely largely on clips posted on t’Interweb.
Yes, it does look as if we’re winning, and on both fronts. But it has taken far too long, and many, many lives have been lost needlessly. There needs to be a reckoning for this.
Simon Jenkins has for many a year been making it up as he goes along. Jenkins makes journalism seem so effortless. For him it must be so, as he never puts in any effort.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 0:53
I don’t know why anyone takes anything uttered by Conor Foley seriously.
Tell him to fuck off and be done with it. The ‘man’ is a dickhead (as is his brother in fluffyness, Ddoublestupid — ginger fuse-wire for brains).
Terry and Jura should be ashamed of themselves for engaging with such a wanker, or any of his wet liberal horseshit.
Piss. He’s on fire. Hold it back.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 10:46
Terry: the two critical mistakes in Afghanistan were first in 2002/2003 when there simply were not enough western troops anywhere outside Kabul and then in 2006 sending British troops to Helmand with no clear strategy. I don’t think that you will find a single person who has worked in the country who would not agree that both of those were clearly foreseeable errors.
What Karzai has now offered the Taliban is face-to-face talks, a full amnesty and a place in the government, with a couple of ministries. Most people I know hate the Taliban (and I agree with you on the opinion poll survey) but there seems to be a general feeling that this might an acceptable price to pay for peace. Karzai made this offer a couple of months back so the timing of Brown’s statement is a bit strange, but I suppose that it is because he must have been briefed on it while he was there.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 11:13
If you read the articles linked to the post you won’t find any common ground. Jenkins views the whole intervention in Afghanistan totally misconceived, he has advocated early withdrawal, and, by implication, he would abandon the country to the Taliban. He is not saying that the tactics are wrong but that we should never have been there. It is part of his continuing anti-interventionist campaign.
As Terry puts it,
Now it’s all about holding ground, rebuilding, and keeping the fascists at bay.
Spot on. What Jenkins is saying is, “it was all a mistake, we’ve lost, its going to get worse, let’s run away and bugger the consequences”. Sorry can’t see the similarities myself.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 11:24
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/12/13/misdirecting_your_panic_rage_and_terror.php
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 12:17
“Those of us who have worked in and care about Afghanistan”
“I don’t think that you will find a single person who has worked in the country who would not agree that both of those were clearly foreseeable errors”.
and from the CiF article Will links to
“I must admit that one of the first thoughts last night, when I heard the news, concerned the right of someone who has never been anywhere near a war zone to condemn a “culture of risk-avoidance” by people who work in them”.
Conor learnt the demagogic power of such statements from the identity politics of the 80s. It is of course vapid, apolitical and probably even pre-enlightenment nonsense. Experientially garnered “knowledge” does not trump an intellectual understanding and the mastery of facts and information, as Mr Glavin demonstrates above.
Aid workers are not “today’s International Brigade” either.
P.S. Brett Lock seems to have him well pinned too.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 13:48
Join the debate if you want to Simon (I would be very interested to find out how your own political views have evolved over the last 20 odd years - but it seems that your ‘Trots know best’ formula remains the same).
You do not have to have visited every country in the world to have a political opinion about it. But if you want to make a statement about what is and what is not an acceptable risk to ask people who are working in a war zone to take then some first hand experience is useful.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 14:46
If I held an operational H&S responsibility for workers in war zones I would surely do exactly that.
More generally.
I wrote the previous comment at about the same time you “played the man and not the ball” with dd* over at Harrys Place, utilising your crushing “I’ve been an aid worker all my life” put down. It is this approach of yours upon which I was commenting. Your “trots know best” line is in a similar vein - yet perhaps even more stupid. People engage in politics precisely because they have a conviction - what follows is a clash of ideas - the day-to-day rough and tumble of political life. I would certainly never engage in what you are currently doing however which is explicitly (sometimes) and implicitly (almost all the time) labelling other peoples contributions inadmissible due to lack of war zone experience. Argue on the basis of your politics and not upon the content of your CV.
*one of that sites sane longer standing commenters
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 15:26
dd claimed that I agreed with the Eustonites ‘on opposing human rights abuses from wherever they emanate’ but that I ‘arrived at these conclusions a little later’ then them.
I prefer to rely on rational debate than throwing my CV around, but his comment was annoying because he was making a patronising and ill-informed assumption about my own views and when I started to hold them. As you can see from the rest of the thread I am engaging with people who are making reasonable points and I would never dismiss someone’s arguments on the basis that you claim.
It is rather ironic to be getting advice about ‘playing the man not the ball’ at this site though.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 15:36
“It is rather ironic to be getting advice about ‘playing the man not the ball’ at this site though.”
Errrr — no it isn’t. Prick.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 17:31
Just got called at HP for CF taking his ball home!
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 17:42
Some of us have work to do Simon!
I missed the earlier (no doubt intentional) irony of you accusing me of relying too much on ‘experientially garnered knowledge’ in a post whose argument rests on the single fact that Anja Havedal lives in Afghanistan and Simon Jenkins doesn’t.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 17:59
Mine was originally a narrow point. I hated the years when every political speech began with “As a ……” which immediately placed the speaker however stupid/wrong/illinformed in a position of moral and political superiority in the unspoken hierarchy of oppression.
Conor is no fool, rather he is a capable and highly experienced political animal and his adaptation of this technique, especially for the credulous at CiF, is deliberate. Go check the HP post (from which I have personally robbed the poor punters of his presence - see the similar demagogic tactic?). Yes, we learn about more places he has been etc. It is a deliberate ploy from someone studied in the skills of political propaganda, nay even Blair camp spin doctoring.
Conor don’t come here playing hurt - you are better at it than any of us! If you mean what you say above simply stop, from now, with this ugly variant of name dropping.
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 18:08
“Some of us have work to do Simon!”
Fucking unbelievable.
Well why not say that rather than introducing my name into a thread, at HP, I had not been involved in?
Er I did spend the afternoon working rather than arguing with people at HP as you did.
I notice you clearly don’t want a similar row here - fair enough pick your fights etc
N.B. it was no point of mine re Jenkins and Havedal - the former has every right to comment but that don’t make it shinola
Thursday 13 December 2007 at 18:31
Simon, I think you misread my ’signing off post’ at HP in which I said that I was stopping because I had to get on with my paid employment (the time difference in Brazil means that I have a few hours left to put in). I just threw your name in as a joke and apologies if this caused offence or embarrassment.
Generally, I agree with you about ‘as a’ politics and its growth in the late 1980s was one of the reasons why I dropped out of student politics to concentrate on my degree.
The Guardian pay me to write where I am and what I am doing, which does mean that I draw on personal experiences. The piece yesterday was very specifically about how I had reacted to news of the attack on the UN. However, scroll back through my last 20 or so posts (or don’t if you can’t be bothered) and I really don’t think you will ever find me using a hierachy of oppression argument to justify my views.