Zcom_simple

US & Afghanistan


Breaking the Chain of Institutional Thinking



Change Text Size a- | A+


Largely as a result of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” the traditional framework of the East-West political dialogue has broken and fallen entirely under the spell of the extremists on both sides. Since much of the West’s relationship was based on Cold War and Neo-colonial relationships to begin with it shouldn’t come as a surprise that it finally broke. Yet nothing new and as powerful has come along to replace it. Now what we see is confusion in the West as declining powers like the U.S. attempt to rig the international system to ensure some role in a future where they cannot control events as they had. The U.S. failure in Afghanistan is largely due to an inability to switch its thinking from the Cold War to a multi-polar world while it had the authority and power to do so. Instead, as the result of manipulation by right wing and neoconservative intellectuals, the U.S. simply substituted Islam for communism and went on with an aggressive strategy as before.

 

 It hasn’t worked and the evidence mounts that a political, economic and or military catastrophe approaches for which the West is not intellectually prepared. By continuing to support Pakistan’s military the U.S. works against its own interests in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. By backing rigged elections with pre-selected candidates that the Afghan people don’t want and by continuing its war on political Islam through predator drones and special operations, the West commits itself to a fight it cannot win. Western intellectual circles have known this for some time but it would now appear as evidenced by the controversy surrounding the recent release of recommendations made to the Obama administration by the Afghanistan Study Group that the consequences of current policy are finally sinking in. As the next stage of recommendations is formulated it is imperative that genuine new thinking gets into the process.

 

Breaking this chain of institutional thinking is essential to solving the Afghan problem. But most suggestions to “think outside the box” aren’t really intended to create new thinking as much as they are to try and maintain the same old thinking with a different approach. What is needed now is a wholly different way of thinking and a whole new group to do it. To do this the issue of Islam needs to be moved off center stage where the current acrimony has been intentionally focused and replace it with another model that incorporates ideas, histories and enduring beliefs that link humanity together in a common struggle and a better life for all.

 

 Resetting the clock in Washington and Afghanistan

 

 Afghanistan’s tribal system has strong ties to Islam, but the center of tribal life is not the Mosque but the secular local community center. The political Islam of today’s Taliban extremists is neither native to Afghanistan nor is it consistent with the traditions of the Pashtun tribal code known as Pashtunwali. As stated by Selig Harrison in his extensive document Pakistan, the State of the Union, “The coexistence and interaction of the ancient tribal code with religious traits is a very interesting phenomenon that is indispensable for understanding the Pashtun national culture. On the one hand, it explains the inevitable and ritualistic religiosity of the Pashtun, and on the other hand it explains the futility of efforts to inject religious fundamentalism in Pashtun social and political culture as it stands in contradiction to Pashtunwali. In fact, the Islamic identity of the Pashtuns is only one thousand years old whereas Pashtunwali is reportedly five thousand years old.”

 

 According to Vartan Gregorian in his 1969 study, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, prior to the British military invasions of the mid-19th century, the Afghans were not hostile to the European powers. In 1809, Scottish statesman and historian Mountstuart Elphinstone and his “retinue of some 400 Anglo-Indian soldiers were well received by the Afghans.” So too were others in 1810, 1815, and 1826, when Sunni Afghans were reported to have expressed an open tolerance toward Christians. British explorer Charles Masson “was well treated by Muslim religious men and Afghan tribesmen.” Of his stay in Kabul in 1832, he reported that a Christian was respectfully referred to as a “Kitabi” or “one of the Book.”

 

Renowned adventurer and East India Company political officer Alexander Burnes wrote home in May of 1832, “The people of this country are kind hearted and hospitable. They have no prejudice against a Christian and none against our nation.” Burnes argued correctly that the strong Afghan Amir, Dost Mohammed, “could keep the country together and resist Russian or Persian encroachment, but a country split into feudal principalities and tribes would invite Russian intrigue aimed at picking them off piecemeal with no great difficulty.”  Yet, his argument and the goodwill of the Afghan people were lost when London acquiesced to the conquest of Afghanistan through what is known as the “Forward Policy,” setting the stage for three Anglo-Afghan wars, an endless low-intensity conflict, and a century and a half of political instability. For centuries prior to the current era, Afghanistan set itself apart as a crossroads of trade and as an example of moderate Islam. It must do so again today not only for the sake of its own people, but as an example of the kind of moderate and progressive Islam the world will lose by allowing the forces of extremism to set the public agenda and rule.

 

 Europe and the United States have a responsibility to Afghanistan. But public opinion is badly informed and disconnected from Afghan culture while governments remain encumbered with colonial mentalities that will deal only with their own vital interests and dismiss any chance for a restoration of Afghan society.

 

 A new and shocking departure from the existing narrative is needed to change the tone of the Afghan crisis and reorient the world’s thinking, but efforts to think outside the box must also be subject to the reality that the box itself is no longer of any value in solving the problem.

 

 

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of two books in the Open Media Series published by City Lights Books,  Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story and  Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire  forthcoming in February 2011. Visit their website at  www.invisiblehistory.com.

Person

Bush

By notme, at Oct 18, 2010 16:59 PM

Since Bush is sitting in the owner's box watching baseball games, isn't it time to stop calling this "Bush's war on terror"?  Two years into rule by Obama and the Democrats, this is now clearly Obama's war on terror.

Fascinating listening to the spin.  When Bush was president, he was an all-powerful imperial president.  US Executive power was so strong that Dick Cheney ran the world from the VP's office.  Now, with Obama in power, suddenly he disappears from the picture.

Two years into Obama's term, and this is still called "Bush's war on terror."  Obama is barely mentioned in this piece, yet Obama is the one who's escalated the Afghan war not once but twice during his first two years in office. 

Yet, from the first paragraph, we are apparently supposed to believe that Bush is still running this war on terror, apparently now from the owner's box in Arlington Stadium?

This war is much more about American domestic politics than about anything in Afghanistan.  Obama used the Afghan war in the last campaign to avoid looking weak when he issued is fake talk about ending the Iraq war.  Bush wanted a war, needed a war after 9-11, but domestic politics wouldn't let him attack Iraq, so he attacked Afghanistan instead.

Changing policy in Afghanistan means changing domestic Americon politics.  And if the people who want change keep voting for pro-war Democrats who are expanding and escalating this war, then that change won't occur.  The change occurs only when domestic politics says that supporting this war means the end of political careers.

Which is why its important to call this Obama's War on Terror.  The way to end this war is to stop supporting the politicians that support this war.  When they start losing because of their pro-war positions, then things will change.   And it vital that people understand that this is now the Democrat's war. Always was really, since only Barbara Lee voted against it.  But, now it has to be clear that this is Obama's war.  We have to understand that clearly if we are to take the domestic political actions that will end this war.

Reply this comment

Loading_border