Excellent commentary on a difficult geo-political conundrum. The author is correct that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, whether we like it or not. We don’t have to embrace or legitimize it, but perhaps some small steps can be taken to civilize the barbarians in charge. That’s the most the West can hope for.
Sure, we – by which I mean the American powers that be, and their British assistants – were overly optimistic to the point of foolishness. Remember though, the original reasons to go in.
Because they were harbouring terrorists who took out the twin towers
the problem is the west’s belief we could then do nation building, we failed in Afghanistan and we failed in Iraq!
In the end an Englishwoman wittering away in a posh accent lectured an audience of women in burkas about the charms of post modern art, which included a real life toilet used as a symbol of something or other. The expressions as the Muslim women whispered to one another showed serious doubt they had anything to learn from the West.
Because they were harbouring terrorists who took out the twin towers
the problem is the west’s belief we could then do nation building, we failed in Afghanistan and we failed in Iraq!
In the end an Englishwoman wittering away in a posh accent lectured an audience of women in burkas about the charms of post modern art, which included a real life toilet used as a symbol of something or other. The expressions as the Muslim women whispered to one another showed serious doubt they had anything to learn from the West.
Sure, we – by which I mean the American powers that be, and their British assistants – were overly optimistic to the point of foolishness. Remember though, the original reasons to go in.
Sorry, maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t see how your post relates to anything I wrote. The Taliban ≠ The Afghans. By your logic the Americans had no business intervening in the World Wars, no? The Taliban won for more or less the same reasons they won against the British and the Russians – and this is why I never had any confidence in the nation building project, worthy cause though it may have been.
You are being dense. America did not intervene in WW2 (the Japanese and the Germans declare war on them. America became in WW1 partly because the Germans attempted to get Mexico to start a war but largely to protect its financial investment.
You may think you have the moral high ground but so do the Taliban.
From the UK perspective, in the not too distant future we can expect to see de facto imposition of some aspects of sharia law being impose on the streets of some or towns and cities where Islamic rape gangs have already been allowed to run riot
The arrival of US troops and armaments in Europe and elsewhere on a large scale beginning in early 1942 certainly constituted a de facto intervention in WWII, and a pivotal one too, even if you prefer to dismiss that reality by pointing to Japan’s forcing of the Americans’ hand and slightly earlier declaration of war, or whatever other technicality.
You don’t have to be an American Exceptionalist (I’m not) to believe that, on balance, strong US power is better than the rise of any plausible alternative beneficiary, like Russia, China, India (I do).
“Nation building” on behalf of nations that cannot or will not do most of it themselves, however, has proven to be a net-disaster in every major way. And our asserted American “moral authority”, always presumptuous, will remain farcically arrogant while our own national house is in such disorder and bad repair.
The arrival of US troops and armaments in Europe and elsewhere on a large scale beginning in early 1942 certainly constituted a de facto intervention in WWII, and a pivotal one too, even if you prefer to dismiss that reality by pointing to Japan’s forcing of the Americans’ hand and slightly earlier declaration of war, or whatever other technicality.
You don’t have to be an American Exceptionalist (I’m not) to believe that, on balance, strong US power is better than the rise of any plausible alternative beneficiary, like Russia, China, India (I do).
“Nation building” on behalf of nations that cannot or will not do most of it themselves, however, has proven to be a net-disaster in every major way. And our asserted American “moral authority”, always presumptuous, will remain farcically arrogant while our own national house is in such disorder and bad repair.
You are being dense. America did not intervene in WW2 (the Japanese and the Germans declare war on them. America became in WW1 partly because the Germans attempted to get Mexico to start a war but largely to protect its financial investment.
You may think you have the moral high ground but so do the Taliban.
From the UK perspective, in the not too distant future we can expect to see de facto imposition of some aspects of sharia law being impose on the streets of some or towns and cities where Islamic rape gangs have already been allowed to run riot
Sorry, maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t see how your post relates to anything I wrote. The Taliban ≠ The Afghans. By your logic the Americans had no business intervening in the World Wars, no? The Taliban won for more or less the same reasons they won against the British and the Russians – and this is why I never had any confidence in the nation building project, worthy cause though it may have been.
We have no more right to impose our values on Afghanistan than they do on us
Thor Albro
9 months ago
Excellent commentary on a difficult geo-political conundrum. The author is correct that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, whether we like it or not. We don’t have to embrace or legitimize it, but perhaps some small steps can be taken to civilize the barbarians in charge. That’s the most the West can hope for.
John Walsh
9 months ago
After listening to the ever increasing whining and bleating from the army of pampered feminists in the West,I am starting to think that the Taliban have some good ideas.
I am inclined to agree with you. Feminists don’t particularly represent women. They are really a political party as demonstrated by Julie Bindel debating whether TERFs should collaborate with the right. Women who call themselves feminists seem to believe they speak for women in general but many many women do not agree with much of their agenda. Feminists do have a lot in common with trans activists, their tendency to believe they represent a certain section of the population and the use of slogans which must not be questioned or debated: my body, my choice; trans women are women. Apparently, the western NGOs spent time and money in Afghanistan preaching wokism.
I don’t know what feminism means to you, but when it stands for better recognition of women’s rights and not strident calls for a single perspective it seems positive to me (a 77-year-old male). It certainly has nothing to do with transactivism, which reeks of misogyny.
I am not sure you have read my comment properly. Feminism, trans activism, anti racism, particularly Black Lives Matter, all have in common that a small vocal minority who are not to be questioned speak for every member of a group. They are political and it is blasphemy to question their precepts. Black Lives Matter call those who disagree with their precepts coconuts, white on the inside. Julie Bindel’s debate on whether TERFs should collaborate with the right referred to a certain extent to Posie Parker (I believe) who was physically attacked in New Zealand while the police watched and did nothing. She was on her ‘Let Women Talk’ tour. There is no doubt she is working really hard for women’s rights and yet Julie Bindel believes she herself is a feminist but Posie Parker isn’t because to be a ‘real’ feminist, a woman has to fit the definition of being on the left that Julie Bindel and her cohorts define. To be a feminist one should vote Labour, hence the angst when Labour adopted trans ideology. (Real feminists vote Labour, real blacks vote Democrat.) The idea that women think for themselves and reach their own conclusions seems anathema to them. Gender studies is a (politically) bad joke. Feminism has been like that since I was young. In the eighties, the message was to be a real feminist, a woman should be a lesbian. Julie Bindel claims to have chosen to be a lesbian. I have always found men who claim to be feminists very dubious. I listened to a Jordan Peter – Gad Saad discussion on YouTube which fully supported my views that men who claim to be feminists tend to use it as a mating tactic. Similarly men who claim to be lesbians are just hoping to up their chances of mating with an actual lesbian.
Self appointed representatives of all the groups claim moral superiority and use this to bash others into submission. All are more like religions. I am beginning to understand why religion and politics should be kept separate. Traditionally it was recognised that some issues were moral rather than political and MPs were not required/expected to follow the party line. Theses were votes of conscience. Abortion used to be a vote of conscious but the success of the feminist slogan: my body, my choice, has re-presented abortion in such a way that any objection is considered as evil, a violation of women’s rights. Rather than objectivity being admired, those who have no personal experience are denied a voice. In my view, Julie Bindel is making money out other people’s suffering. I posted my view in a comment under an article she had written for Unherd. Last time I looked, I had received 43 downvotes. I was criticised on the basis if I had experienced what JB has experienced I would have thought differently and consequently was not entitled to my point of view. I strongly object to this argument as I believe as far as possible, all points of view should be taken into account. My experience of abuse is at least as much as JB’s but I strongly object to the suggestion I should be obliged to reveal my own experience or even had it, though I do think JB would be less of a misandrist if the abuse she had experienced was more varied.
One of the precepts of feminism was that biology makes no difference when clearly it does. How much of a difference is beginning to become clearer but rather than debate the differences, a new scapegoat has been identified: the patriarchy.
I am not sure you have read my comment properly. Feminism, trans activism, anti racism, particularly Black Lives Matter, all have in common that a small vocal minority who are not to be questioned speak for every member of a group. They are political and it is blasphemy to question their precepts. Black Lives Matter call those who disagree with their precepts coconuts, white on the inside. Julie Bindel’s debate on whether TERFs should collaborate with the right referred to a certain extent to Posie Parker (I believe) who was physically attacked in New Zealand while the police watched and did nothing. She was on her ‘Let Women Talk’ tour. There is no doubt she is working really hard for women’s rights and yet Julie Bindel believes she herself is a feminist but Posie Parker isn’t because to be a ‘real’ feminist, a woman has to fit the definition of being on the left that Julie Bindel and her cohorts define. To be a feminist one should vote Labour, hence the angst when Labour adopted trans ideology. (Real feminists vote Labour, real blacks vote Democrat.) The idea that women think for themselves and reach their own conclusions seems anathema to them. Gender studies is a (politically) bad joke. Feminism has been like that since I was young. In the eighties, the message was to be a real feminist, a woman should be a lesbian. Julie Bindel claims to have chosen to be a lesbian. I have always found men who claim to be feminists very dubious. I listened to a Jordan Peter – Gad Saad discussion on YouTube which fully supported my views that men who claim to be feminists tend to use it as a mating tactic. Similarly men who claim to be lesbians are just hoping to up their chances of mating with an actual lesbian.
Self appointed representatives of all the groups claim moral superiority and use this to bash others into submission. All are more like religions. I am beginning to understand why religion and politics should be kept separate. Traditionally it was recognised that some issues were moral rather than political and MPs were not required/expected to follow the party line. Theses were votes of conscience. Abortion used to be a vote of conscious but the success of the feminist slogan: my body, my choice, has re-presented abortion in such a way that any objection is considered as evil, a violation of women’s rights. Rather than objectivity being admired, those who have no personal experience are denied a voice. In my view, Julie Bindel is making money out other people’s suffering. I posted my view in a comment under an article she had written for Unherd. Last time I looked, I had received 43 downvotes. I was criticised on the basis if I had experienced what JB has experienced I would have thought differently and consequently was not entitled to my point of view. I strongly object to this argument as I believe as far as possible, all points of view should be taken into account. My experience of abuse is at least as much as JB’s but I strongly object to the suggestion I should be obliged to reveal my own experience or even had it, though I do think JB would be less of a misandrist if the abuse she had experienced was more varied.
One of the precepts of feminism was that biology makes no difference when clearly it does. How much of a difference is beginning to become clearer but rather than debate the differences, a new scapegoat has been identified: the patriarchy.
I don’t know what feminism means to you, but when it stands for better recognition of women’s rights and not strident calls for a single perspective it seems positive to me (a 77-year-old male). It certainly has nothing to do with transactivism, which reeks of misogyny.
Not really, no. Any ideology that starts with the supposition that 50% of the population is unequal and undeserving of any rights of citizenship is evil.
Yabut when we attack their values it’s seen as attacking Islam and so they double down. Quiet, even silent persuasion — simply being there and engaging with them might work quiet miracles.
Yabut when we attack their values it’s seen as attacking Islam and so they double down. Quiet, even silent persuasion — simply being there and engaging with them might work quiet miracles.
I am inclined to agree with you. Feminists don’t particularly represent women. They are really a political party as demonstrated by Julie Bindel debating whether TERFs should collaborate with the right. Women who call themselves feminists seem to believe they speak for women in general but many many women do not agree with much of their agenda. Feminists do have a lot in common with trans activists, their tendency to believe they represent a certain section of the population and the use of slogans which must not be questioned or debated: my body, my choice; trans women are women. Apparently, the western NGOs spent time and money in Afghanistan preaching wokism.
Not really, no. Any ideology that starts with the supposition that 50% of the population is unequal and undeserving of any rights of citizenship is evil.
John Walsh
9 months ago
After listening to the ever increasing whining and bleating from the army of pampered feminists in the West,I am starting to think that the Taliban have some good ideas.
Prashant Kotak
9 months ago
Let me point out the circularity implicit in tracts of this article – and I will do it in the voice of your friendly neighbourhood Mafiosi. “Look at the improvement since we took over this neighborhood” says the hood. “There was crime, there was killing and shooting on the streets every day, everyone was scared, nobody could do any business, even the cops didn’t dare stay. It’s great now, look the streets are prospering”. And one of shopkeepers, paying a fortune in ‘protection’ and dummer then the rest, resentfully pipes up, “Yeah things are a lot better, but weren’t you the ones doing the shooting and the killing and the crime when things were bad? And you still keeping the cops away”. Our friendly neighborhood Mafiosi stares at the guy for a while, and then says “Listen sonny, repeat that lie once more, and a horses head is on its way to your bedroom”.
The author is looking at the seeming resilience of the Afghans the wrong way. The stoneage cavemen knew how to survive in the harshest conditions but that doesn’t mean average mortality ever crept above 25. Tell me the rate of infant mortality and the number of women dying in childbirth and then we know if in fact things are any better under the taliban. The woman and girls of Afghanistan are suffering daily, but if you give any sort of legitimacy to the taliban, you will simply entrench that suffering into perpetuity.
Last edited 9 months ago by Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
9 months ago
Let me point out the circularity implicit in tracts of this article – and I will do it in the voice of your friendly neighbourhood Mafiosi. “Look at the improvement since we took over this neighborhood” says the hood. “There was crime, there was killing and shooting on the streets every day, everyone was scared, nobody could do any business, even the cops didn’t dare stay. It’s great now, look the streets are prospering”. And one of shopkeepers, paying a fortune in ‘protection’ and dummer then the rest, resentfully pipes up, “Yeah things are a lot better, but weren’t you the ones doing the shooting and the killing and the crime when things were bad? And you still keeping the cops away”. Our friendly neighborhood Mafiosi stares at the guy for a while, and then says “Listen sonny, repeat that lie once more, and a horses head is on its way to your bedroom”.
The author is looking at the seeming resilience of the Afghans the wrong way. The stoneage cavemen knew how to survive in the harshest conditions but that doesn’t mean average mortality ever crept above 25. Tell me the rate of infant mortality and the number of women dying in childbirth and then we know if in fact things are any better under the taliban. The woman and girls of Afghanistan are suffering daily, but if you give any sort of legitimacy to the taliban, you will simply entrench that suffering into perpetuity.
Last edited 9 months ago by Prashant Kotak
Jerry Carroll
9 months ago
Why don’t we let Afghanistan stew in its own juices for the next century? Do-gooding NGOs in a position to twist the arms of governments in the West to cough up “humanitarian aid” that the warlords use to live high on the hog have profited from that sorry country long enough.
Jerry Carroll
9 months ago
Why don’t we let Afghanistan stew in its own juices for the next century? Do-gooding NGOs in a position to twist the arms of governments in the West to cough up “humanitarian aid” that the warlords use to live high on the hog have profited from that sorry country long enough.
John Murray
9 months ago
It sounds like our sanctions are working splendidly. Leave these countries alone to figure this stuff out for themselves and don’t spend a penny, you say? Your proposal is acceptable.
John Murray
9 months ago
It sounds like our sanctions are working splendidly. Leave these countries alone to figure this stuff out for themselves and don’t spend a penny, you say? Your proposal is acceptable.
Charles Hedges
9 months ago
The Empire of Genghis Khan was peaceful, once he killed all those who opposed him( some say 40M). Conflict occurs between groups. Once one group is all powerful there is little conflict.
Another person who imposed peace on warring groups was Shaka Zulu.
The Afghans have been growing food in their country and surviving winters for thousands of years.
Pretty sure Shaka Zulu’s reign set into motion the Mfecane, the worst cycle of violence in southern African history. He made a wasteland and called it peace.
Pretty sure Shaka Zulu’s reign set into motion the Mfecane, the worst cycle of violence in southern African history. He made a wasteland and called it peace.
Charles Hedges
9 months ago
The Empire of Genghis Khan was peaceful, once he killed all those who opposed him( some say 40M). Conflict occurs between groups. Once one group is all powerful there is little conflict.
Another person who imposed peace on warring groups was Shaka Zulu.
The Afghans have been growing food in their country and surviving winters for thousands of years.
Rocky Martiano
9 months ago
Seems like sanctions are proving the adage that ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity’.
Rocky Martiano
9 months ago
Seems like sanctions are proving the adage that ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity’.
Gerald Arcuri
9 months ago
Milton Friedman once said, “Programs should be judged, not on their intentions but on their results.”
That sounds right, and probably is. As long as it is applied at the right time. When a program is first entered into, their are only intentions, and no results. Which is why it’s so important to assess any program continually as it it unfolds, and if it is deviating too greatly from the fundamental intentions, be prepared to modify it until it does, or end it before it becomes a sinkhole.
This the American government failed to do in Afghanistan, and the result was a disgraceful pullout, a betrayal and an abandonment of urban Afghans and of all Afghan women and girls.
Gerald Arcuri
9 months ago
Milton Friedman once said, “Programs should be judged, not on their intentions but on their results.”
That sounds right, and probably is. As long as it is applied at the right time. When a program is first entered into, their are only intentions, and no results. Which is why it’s so important to assess any program continually as it it unfolds, and if it is deviating too greatly from the fundamental intentions, be prepared to modify it until it does, or end it before it becomes a sinkhole.
This the American government failed to do in Afghanistan, and the result was a disgraceful pullout, a betrayal and an abandonment of urban Afghans and of all Afghan women and girls.
Anna Clare Bryson
9 months ago
I don’t think it’s true that the twenty years of non-Taliban rule had no effect on e.g. maternal and infant mortality rates….In fact I saw stats that suggests they were halved. And while figures are hard to come by currently, health workers are reporting rise in the rates again. I think it’s a bit of a cliche – this idea that the only Afghan women to experience any liberating benefits from the twenty years were a handful of rich ones. In the flood of stories of fleeing or unable-to-flee Afghans at the time of the new Taliban takeover, there were many of women who may not have been the poorest of the poor in the most remote areas, but were hardly gilded youth…they included small business owners, clerks in local administration, of course the healthworkers including midwives and nurses, and many women who were sole earners for families.
Anna Clare Bryson
9 months ago
I don’t think it’s true that the twenty years of non-Taliban rule had no effect on e.g. maternal and infant mortality rates….In fact I saw stats that suggests they were halved. And while figures are hard to come by currently, health workers are reporting rise in the rates again. I think it’s a bit of a cliche – this idea that the only Afghan women to experience any liberating benefits from the twenty years were a handful of rich ones. In the flood of stories of fleeing or unable-to-flee Afghans at the time of the new Taliban takeover, there were many of women who may not have been the poorest of the poor in the most remote areas, but were hardly gilded youth…they included small business owners, clerks in local administration, of course the healthworkers including midwives and nurses, and many women who were sole earners for families.
Simon Diggins
9 months ago
Should we talk to the Taliban? That’s the question and much of the debate comment below is only marginal to that.
My personal view is, with reluctance, yes, we should engage with the Taliban and we have enough experience, in this wicked old world, to do so without formally recognising the regime. We should be guided by the women of Afghanistan and do recommend that we are essentially single-issue, by single-issue, and pragmatic; as soon as we elevate this to the level of ‘principles’, all will quickly be lost.
So, yes to partial release of Afghan national funds, if hypothecated to humanitarian purposes: release of more funds for teaching of women to be nurses or doctors, say (disgracefully stereotyping by western standards) but a wedge in the door; a similar regimen for teacher training; all shamefully backward by Western standards but progress of a sort.
What else can we do to help?
• Put pressure on their main external backer, Pakistan, and cut-off the latter’s (generous) aid monies, unless they control their Taliban auxiliaries (and don’t believe any B/s that they have no control; ISI were all over Aug 21. )
• Dislocate the Taliban’s intransigence by providing a comprehensive package of distance learning up to degree standard for women, so that they (eventually) recognise that trying to stop women’s education is a waste of time.
• Expose ruthlessly their hypocrites, who, whilst proscribing education for women at home, have send their daughters overseas to learn.
• Fast-track and be generous with scholarships for Afghan women to attend university in the West and India; it is possible to get out and providing thousands of scholarship opportunities would again render as nought the Taliban’s efforts.
So lots that can be done; let’s not make this into a first-world, ‘luxury-belief’ debate about Terfs etc or even whether we were right to intervene in 2001. The problem is now and very real for millions of Afghan women.
How will the women leave Afghanistan? Distance learning how? Will men allow women to use computers and radios ? So funds will go actually for teaching women? We have had little influence on Pakistan since Zia al Haq took over.
I disagree with you Simon with respect to the TERFs discussion:. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’” I watched Putin being interviewed on YouTube not long before the invasion of Ukraine. He was criticising the West and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. I don’t think the West is short on hypocrisy: 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. I believe change has to come from within otherwise there is too much of a disconnect.
To me, the invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11 seemed like an act of revenge. Some group had to pay.
How will the women leave Afghanistan? Distance learning how? Will men allow women to use computers and radios ? So funds will go actually for teaching women? We have had little influence on Pakistan since Zia al Haq took over.
I disagree with you Simon with respect to the TERFs discussion:. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’” I watched Putin being interviewed on YouTube not long before the invasion of Ukraine. He was criticising the West and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. I don’t think the West is short on hypocrisy: 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. I believe change has to come from within otherwise there is too much of a disconnect.
To me, the invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11 seemed like an act of revenge. Some group had to pay.
Last edited 9 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
Simon Diggins
9 months ago
Should we talk to the Taliban? That’s the question and much of the debate comment below is only marginal to that.
My personal view is, with reluctance, yes, we should engage with the Taliban and we have enough experience, in this wicked old world, to do so without formally recognising the regime. We should be guided by the women of Afghanistan and do recommend that we are essentially single-issue, by single-issue, and pragmatic; as soon as we elevate this to the level of ‘principles’, all will quickly be lost.
So, yes to partial release of Afghan national funds, if hypothecated to humanitarian purposes: release of more funds for teaching of women to be nurses or doctors, say (disgracefully stereotyping by western standards) but a wedge in the door; a similar regimen for teacher training; all shamefully backward by Western standards but progress of a sort.
What else can we do to help?
• Put pressure on their main external backer, Pakistan, and cut-off the latter’s (generous) aid monies, unless they control their Taliban auxiliaries (and don’t believe any B/s that they have no control; ISI were all over Aug 21. )
• Dislocate the Taliban’s intransigence by providing a comprehensive package of distance learning up to degree standard for women, so that they (eventually) recognise that trying to stop women’s education is a waste of time.
• Expose ruthlessly their hypocrites, who, whilst proscribing education for women at home, have send their daughters overseas to learn.
• Fast-track and be generous with scholarships for Afghan women to attend university in the West and India; it is possible to get out and providing thousands of scholarship opportunities would again render as nought the Taliban’s efforts.
So lots that can be done; let’s not make this into a first-world, ‘luxury-belief’ debate about Terfs etc or even whether we were right to intervene in 2001. The problem is now and very real for millions of Afghan women.
With best wishes
Simon Diggins
UK Defence Attaché, Kabul 2008-10
ben arnulfssen
9 months ago
The crucial point about Islam is that it developed in backward rural areas with intensely conservative social attitudes, populated to the limit of what local resources will support.
It flourishes in such places to this day, because it remains relevant. Its ferocious, intolerant legal codes take the place of a sense of community. Its sequestration of women derives from the focus on paternity and blood relationship which is the main social driver in such societies. Its ruthlessness provides it with a grip on the moral high ground which is otherwise very difficult to define.
It may not be the “government” in the Western sense. It IS, however a means of governing their affairs which the population finds workable.
Islam rapidly absorbed the knowledge of the Greek, Persian and Hindu worlds. What we see in much of the Islamic World is regression due to the rise of groups such as Muslim Betheren and Abul Maududi being funded by the Saudis. The Sufi influenced Islam of Afghanistan has been replaced by Saudi Salaafism and in Pakistan the Deobandi ( connected to Wahabism ) version of Islam has grown in strength. The Sunni Islam of Lebanon of the 1960s to early 1970s was very cosmopolitan in outlook.
Indeed – 500 years ago the situation was the exact opposite, the Islamic world was a bastion of learning, tolerance, the arts, whilst much of Europe was a viciously sectarian theocracy, killing torturing and persecuting each other and the wrong sort of Christians.
Indeed – 500 years ago the situation was the exact opposite, the Islamic world was a bastion of learning, tolerance, the arts, whilst much of Europe was a viciously sectarian theocracy, killing torturing and persecuting each other and the wrong sort of Christians.
Islam rapidly absorbed the knowledge of the Greek, Persian and Hindu worlds. What we see in much of the Islamic World is regression due to the rise of groups such as Muslim Betheren and Abul Maududi being funded by the Saudis. The Sufi influenced Islam of Afghanistan has been replaced by Saudi Salaafism and in Pakistan the Deobandi ( connected to Wahabism ) version of Islam has grown in strength. The Sunni Islam of Lebanon of the 1960s to early 1970s was very cosmopolitan in outlook.
ben arnulfssen
9 months ago
The crucial point about Islam is that it developed in backward rural areas with intensely conservative social attitudes, populated to the limit of what local resources will support.
It flourishes in such places to this day, because it remains relevant. Its ferocious, intolerant legal codes take the place of a sense of community. Its sequestration of women derives from the focus on paternity and blood relationship which is the main social driver in such societies. Its ruthlessness provides it with a grip on the moral high ground which is otherwise very difficult to define.
It may not be the “government” in the Western sense. It IS, however a means of governing their affairs which the population finds workable.
Malcolm Knott
9 months ago
Do these medieval thugs live mostly on foreign aid?
Malcolm Knott
9 months ago
Do these medieval thugs live mostly on foreign aid?
Brian Villanueva
1 month ago
Peter Van Buren wrote a great book called We Meant Well about his time as an FSO in Iraq. The same lessons apply to Afghanistan.
According to Van Buren, the State Dept always viewed women as the key. Their job was to convince Muslim women to “want to wear miniskirts and own businesses” (Van Buren’s phrase if I remember correctly.) In Tehran (and Kabul) they succeeded (a little); elsewhere not so much. It turns out conservative Muslim women don’t want miniskirts and businesses. What they do want is to raise their families in a mostly peaceful society structured along Islamic social norms. Contra the US State Dept, every burka does not hide a Wellesley feminist studies major just yearning to break free.
As a side note, we didn’t make it any easier on ourselves by also trying to sell them on stupid Western obsessions like pride parades — https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKabul/status/1400060130243362816 — and postmodernist art — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrvpSfJM1w In that last video, watch the eyes at about 25 seconds in. How did Allah’s hillbillies kick our butts in Afghanistan? In part because we told the Afghans they had to be like us and pretend that urinals were art.
Excellent commentary on a difficult geo-political conundrum. The author is correct that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, whether we like it or not. We don’t have to embrace or legitimize it, but perhaps some small steps can be taken to civilize the barbarians in charge. That’s the most the West can hope for.
We have no more right to impose our values on Afghanistan than they do on us
What if the majority of Afghans don’t believe in the values of the Taliban? I do not know this to be true, but it seems a distinct possibility.
Then we can aid them, but cannot fight their battle for them. As we have tried and failed to do previously.
Sure, we – by which I mean the American powers that be, and their British assistants – were overly optimistic to the point of foolishness. Remember though, the original reasons to go in.
Because they were harbouring terrorists who took out the twin towers
the problem is the west’s belief we could then do nation building, we failed in Afghanistan and we failed in Iraq!
No argument there. American exceptionalism/naivety, coupled with British Poodleism.
Does the A stand for arsehole?
Nice, Jerry, real classy.
Nice, Jerry, real classy.
Does the A stand for arsehole?
On the basis of ‘cui bono’ it must have been Mossad.
After all who REALLY benefited?
No argument there. American exceptionalism/naivety, coupled with British Poodleism.
On the basis of ‘cui bono’ it must have been Mossad.
After all who REALLY benefited?
In the end an Englishwoman wittering away in a posh accent lectured an audience of women in burkas about the charms of post modern art, which included a real life toilet used as a symbol of something or other. The expressions as the Muslim women whispered to one another showed serious doubt they had anything to learn from the West.
How could one see the women’s expressions if they were wearing burkas?
How could one see the women’s expressions if they were wearing burkas?
Because they were harbouring terrorists who took out the twin towers
the problem is the west’s belief we could then do nation building, we failed in Afghanistan and we failed in Iraq!
In the end an Englishwoman wittering away in a posh accent lectured an audience of women in burkas about the charms of post modern art, which included a real life toilet used as a symbol of something or other. The expressions as the Muslim women whispered to one another showed serious doubt they had anything to learn from the West.
Sure, we – by which I mean the American powers that be, and their British assistants – were overly optimistic to the point of foolishness. Remember though, the original reasons to go in.
How come they kicked our collective arse?
And supposing they were in the ascendency?
Sorry, maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t see how your post relates to anything I wrote. The Taliban ≠ The Afghans. By your logic the Americans had no business intervening in the World Wars, no? The Taliban won for more or less the same reasons they won against the British and the Russians – and this is why I never had any confidence in the nation building project, worthy cause though it may have been.
You are being dense. America did not intervene in WW2 (the Japanese and the Germans declare war on them. America became in WW1 partly because the Germans attempted to get Mexico to start a war but largely to protect its financial investment.
You may think you have the moral high ground but so do the Taliban.
From the UK perspective, in the not too distant future we can expect to see de facto imposition of some aspects of sharia law being impose on the streets of some or towns and cities where Islamic rape gangs have already been allowed to run riot
Ah well, there are worse hings than being dense.
That is how I console myself
That is how I console myself
The arrival of US troops and armaments in Europe and elsewhere on a large scale beginning in early 1942 certainly constituted a de facto intervention in WWII, and a pivotal one too, even if you prefer to dismiss that reality by pointing to Japan’s forcing of the Americans’ hand and slightly earlier declaration of war, or whatever other technicality.
You don’t have to be an American Exceptionalist (I’m not) to believe that, on balance, strong US power is better than the rise of any plausible alternative beneficiary, like Russia, China, India (I do).
“Nation building” on behalf of nations that cannot or will not do most of it themselves, however, has proven to be a net-disaster in every major way. And our asserted American “moral authority”, always presumptuous, will remain farcically arrogant while our own national house is in such disorder and bad repair.
Ah well, there are worse hings than being dense.
The arrival of US troops and armaments in Europe and elsewhere on a large scale beginning in early 1942 certainly constituted a de facto intervention in WWII, and a pivotal one too, even if you prefer to dismiss that reality by pointing to Japan’s forcing of the Americans’ hand and slightly earlier declaration of war, or whatever other technicality.
You don’t have to be an American Exceptionalist (I’m not) to believe that, on balance, strong US power is better than the rise of any plausible alternative beneficiary, like Russia, China, India (I do).
“Nation building” on behalf of nations that cannot or will not do most of it themselves, however, has proven to be a net-disaster in every major way. And our asserted American “moral authority”, always presumptuous, will remain farcically arrogant while our own national house is in such disorder and bad repair.
You are being dense. America did not intervene in WW2 (the Japanese and the Germans declare war on them. America became in WW1 partly because the Germans attempted to get Mexico to start a war but largely to protect its financial investment.
You may think you have the moral high ground but so do the Taliban.
From the UK perspective, in the not too distant future we can expect to see de facto imposition of some aspects of sharia law being impose on the streets of some or towns and cities where Islamic rape gangs have already been allowed to run riot
Sorry, maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t see how your post relates to anything I wrote. The Taliban ≠ The Afghans. By your logic the Americans had no business intervening in the World Wars, no? The Taliban won for more or less the same reasons they won against the British and the Russians – and this is why I never had any confidence in the nation building project, worthy cause though it may have been.
Then we can aid them, but cannot fight their battle for them. As we have tried and failed to do previously.
How come they kicked our collective arse?
And supposing they were in the ascendency?
What if the majority of Afghans don’t believe in the values of the Taliban? I do not know this to be true, but it seems a distinct possibility.
We have no more right to impose our values on Afghanistan than they do on us
Excellent commentary on a difficult geo-political conundrum. The author is correct that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, whether we like it or not. We don’t have to embrace or legitimize it, but perhaps some small steps can be taken to civilize the barbarians in charge. That’s the most the West can hope for.
After listening to the ever increasing whining and bleating from the army of pampered feminists in the West,I am starting to think that the Taliban have some good ideas.
I wonder what they would do with Alison Rose?
I am inclined to agree with you. Feminists don’t particularly represent women. They are really a political party as demonstrated by Julie Bindel debating whether TERFs should collaborate with the right. Women who call themselves feminists seem to believe they speak for women in general but many many women do not agree with much of their agenda. Feminists do have a lot in common with trans activists, their tendency to believe they represent a certain section of the population and the use of slogans which must not be questioned or debated: my body, my choice; trans women are women. Apparently, the western NGOs spent time and money in Afghanistan preaching wokism.
The trannies knifed feminism. It’s all good – it lost its raisin d’etre.
Right, raisins belong in cereal and on buns.
Right, raisins belong in cereal and on buns.
I don’t know what feminism means to you, but when it stands for better recognition of women’s rights and not strident calls for a single perspective it seems positive to me (a 77-year-old male). It certainly has nothing to do with transactivism, which reeks of misogyny.
I am not sure you have read my comment properly. Feminism, trans activism, anti racism, particularly Black Lives Matter, all have in common that a small vocal minority who are not to be questioned speak for every member of a group. They are political and it is blasphemy to question their precepts. Black Lives Matter call those who disagree with their precepts coconuts, white on the inside. Julie Bindel’s debate on whether TERFs should collaborate with the right referred to a certain extent to Posie Parker (I believe) who was physically attacked in New Zealand while the police watched and did nothing. She was on her ‘Let Women Talk’ tour. There is no doubt she is working really hard for women’s rights and yet Julie Bindel believes she herself is a feminist but Posie Parker isn’t because to be a ‘real’ feminist, a woman has to fit the definition of being on the left that Julie Bindel and her cohorts define. To be a feminist one should vote Labour, hence the angst when Labour adopted trans ideology. (Real feminists vote Labour, real blacks vote Democrat.) The idea that women think for themselves and reach their own conclusions seems anathema to them. Gender studies is a (politically) bad joke. Feminism has been like that since I was young. In the eighties, the message was to be a real feminist, a woman should be a lesbian. Julie Bindel claims to have chosen to be a lesbian. I have always found men who claim to be feminists very dubious. I listened to a Jordan Peter – Gad Saad discussion on YouTube which fully supported my views that men who claim to be feminists tend to use it as a mating tactic. Similarly men who claim to be lesbians are just hoping to up their chances of mating with an actual lesbian.
Self appointed representatives of all the groups claim moral superiority and use this to bash others into submission. All are more like religions. I am beginning to understand why religion and politics should be kept separate. Traditionally it was recognised that some issues were moral rather than political and MPs were not required/expected to follow the party line. Theses were votes of conscience. Abortion used to be a vote of conscious but the success of the feminist slogan: my body, my choice, has re-presented abortion in such a way that any objection is considered as evil, a violation of women’s rights. Rather than objectivity being admired, those who have no personal experience are denied a voice. In my view, Julie Bindel is making money out other people’s suffering. I posted my view in a comment under an article she had written for Unherd. Last time I looked, I had received 43 downvotes. I was criticised on the basis if I had experienced what JB has experienced I would have thought differently and consequently was not entitled to my point of view. I strongly object to this argument as I believe as far as possible, all points of view should be taken into account. My experience of abuse is at least as much as JB’s but I strongly object to the suggestion I should be obliged to reveal my own experience or even had it, though I do think JB would be less of a misandrist if the abuse she had experienced was more varied.
One of the precepts of feminism was that biology makes no difference when clearly it does. How much of a difference is beginning to become clearer but rather than debate the differences, a new scapegoat has been identified: the patriarchy.
I am not sure you have read my comment properly. Feminism, trans activism, anti racism, particularly Black Lives Matter, all have in common that a small vocal minority who are not to be questioned speak for every member of a group. They are political and it is blasphemy to question their precepts. Black Lives Matter call those who disagree with their precepts coconuts, white on the inside. Julie Bindel’s debate on whether TERFs should collaborate with the right referred to a certain extent to Posie Parker (I believe) who was physically attacked in New Zealand while the police watched and did nothing. She was on her ‘Let Women Talk’ tour. There is no doubt she is working really hard for women’s rights and yet Julie Bindel believes she herself is a feminist but Posie Parker isn’t because to be a ‘real’ feminist, a woman has to fit the definition of being on the left that Julie Bindel and her cohorts define. To be a feminist one should vote Labour, hence the angst when Labour adopted trans ideology. (Real feminists vote Labour, real blacks vote Democrat.) The idea that women think for themselves and reach their own conclusions seems anathema to them. Gender studies is a (politically) bad joke. Feminism has been like that since I was young. In the eighties, the message was to be a real feminist, a woman should be a lesbian. Julie Bindel claims to have chosen to be a lesbian. I have always found men who claim to be feminists very dubious. I listened to a Jordan Peter – Gad Saad discussion on YouTube which fully supported my views that men who claim to be feminists tend to use it as a mating tactic. Similarly men who claim to be lesbians are just hoping to up their chances of mating with an actual lesbian.
Self appointed representatives of all the groups claim moral superiority and use this to bash others into submission. All are more like religions. I am beginning to understand why religion and politics should be kept separate. Traditionally it was recognised that some issues were moral rather than political and MPs were not required/expected to follow the party line. Theses were votes of conscience. Abortion used to be a vote of conscious but the success of the feminist slogan: my body, my choice, has re-presented abortion in such a way that any objection is considered as evil, a violation of women’s rights. Rather than objectivity being admired, those who have no personal experience are denied a voice. In my view, Julie Bindel is making money out other people’s suffering. I posted my view in a comment under an article she had written for Unherd. Last time I looked, I had received 43 downvotes. I was criticised on the basis if I had experienced what JB has experienced I would have thought differently and consequently was not entitled to my point of view. I strongly object to this argument as I believe as far as possible, all points of view should be taken into account. My experience of abuse is at least as much as JB’s but I strongly object to the suggestion I should be obliged to reveal my own experience or even had it, though I do think JB would be less of a misandrist if the abuse she had experienced was more varied.
One of the precepts of feminism was that biology makes no difference when clearly it does. How much of a difference is beginning to become clearer but rather than debate the differences, a new scapegoat has been identified: the patriarchy.
The trannies knifed feminism. It’s all good – it lost its raisin d’etre.
I don’t know what feminism means to you, but when it stands for better recognition of women’s rights and not strident calls for a single perspective it seems positive to me (a 77-year-old male). It certainly has nothing to do with transactivism, which reeks of misogyny.
No problem with making jokes, but for the avoidance of doubt, the taliban are poison.
Not really, no. Any ideology that starts with the supposition that 50% of the population is unequal and undeserving of any rights of citizenship is evil.
Yabut when we attack their values it’s seen as attacking Islam and so they double down. Quiet, even silent persuasion — simply being there and engaging with them might work quiet miracles.
Care to risk your head on the outcome?
Christianity used to operate like that, setting up hospitals. Trying to set an example of the Christian lifestyle.
Care to risk your head on the outcome?
Christianity used to operate like that, setting up hospitals. Trying to set an example of the Christian lifestyle.
Yabut when we attack their values it’s seen as attacking Islam and so they double down. Quiet, even silent persuasion — simply being there and engaging with them might work quiet miracles.
I wonder what they would do with Alison Rose?
I am inclined to agree with you. Feminists don’t particularly represent women. They are really a political party as demonstrated by Julie Bindel debating whether TERFs should collaborate with the right. Women who call themselves feminists seem to believe they speak for women in general but many many women do not agree with much of their agenda. Feminists do have a lot in common with trans activists, their tendency to believe they represent a certain section of the population and the use of slogans which must not be questioned or debated: my body, my choice; trans women are women. Apparently, the western NGOs spent time and money in Afghanistan preaching wokism.
No problem with making jokes, but for the avoidance of doubt, the taliban are poison.
Not really, no. Any ideology that starts with the supposition that 50% of the population is unequal and undeserving of any rights of citizenship is evil.
After listening to the ever increasing whining and bleating from the army of pampered feminists in the West,I am starting to think that the Taliban have some good ideas.
Let me point out the circularity implicit in tracts of this article – and I will do it in the voice of your friendly neighbourhood Mafiosi. “Look at the improvement since we took over this neighborhood” says the hood. “There was crime, there was killing and shooting on the streets every day, everyone was scared, nobody could do any business, even the cops didn’t dare stay. It’s great now, look the streets are prospering”. And one of shopkeepers, paying a fortune in ‘protection’ and dummer then the rest, resentfully pipes up, “Yeah things are a lot better, but weren’t you the ones doing the shooting and the killing and the crime when things were bad? And you still keeping the cops away”. Our friendly neighborhood Mafiosi stares at the guy for a while, and then says “Listen sonny, repeat that lie once more, and a horses head is on its way to your bedroom”.
The author is looking at the seeming resilience of the Afghans the wrong way. The stoneage cavemen knew how to survive in the harshest conditions but that doesn’t mean average mortality ever crept above 25. Tell me the rate of infant mortality and the number of women dying in childbirth and then we know if in fact things are any better under the taliban. The woman and girls of Afghanistan are suffering daily, but if you give any sort of legitimacy to the taliban, you will simply entrench that suffering into perpetuity.
Let me point out the circularity implicit in tracts of this article – and I will do it in the voice of your friendly neighbourhood Mafiosi. “Look at the improvement since we took over this neighborhood” says the hood. “There was crime, there was killing and shooting on the streets every day, everyone was scared, nobody could do any business, even the cops didn’t dare stay. It’s great now, look the streets are prospering”. And one of shopkeepers, paying a fortune in ‘protection’ and dummer then the rest, resentfully pipes up, “Yeah things are a lot better, but weren’t you the ones doing the shooting and the killing and the crime when things were bad? And you still keeping the cops away”. Our friendly neighborhood Mafiosi stares at the guy for a while, and then says “Listen sonny, repeat that lie once more, and a horses head is on its way to your bedroom”.
The author is looking at the seeming resilience of the Afghans the wrong way. The stoneage cavemen knew how to survive in the harshest conditions but that doesn’t mean average mortality ever crept above 25. Tell me the rate of infant mortality and the number of women dying in childbirth and then we know if in fact things are any better under the taliban. The woman and girls of Afghanistan are suffering daily, but if you give any sort of legitimacy to the taliban, you will simply entrench that suffering into perpetuity.
Why don’t we let Afghanistan stew in its own juices for the next century? Do-gooding NGOs in a position to twist the arms of governments in the West to cough up “humanitarian aid” that the warlords use to live high on the hog have profited from that sorry country long enough.
Why don’t we let Afghanistan stew in its own juices for the next century? Do-gooding NGOs in a position to twist the arms of governments in the West to cough up “humanitarian aid” that the warlords use to live high on the hog have profited from that sorry country long enough.
It sounds like our sanctions are working splendidly. Leave these countries alone to figure this stuff out for themselves and don’t spend a penny, you say? Your proposal is acceptable.
It sounds like our sanctions are working splendidly. Leave these countries alone to figure this stuff out for themselves and don’t spend a penny, you say? Your proposal is acceptable.
The Empire of Genghis Khan was peaceful, once he killed all those who opposed him( some say 40M). Conflict occurs between groups. Once one group is all powerful there is little conflict.
Another person who imposed peace on warring groups was Shaka Zulu.
The Afghans have been growing food in their country and surviving winters for thousands of years.
Pretty sure Shaka Zulu’s reign set into motion the Mfecane, the worst cycle of violence in southern African history. He made a wasteland and called it peace.
Pretty sure Shaka Zulu’s reign set into motion the Mfecane, the worst cycle of violence in southern African history. He made a wasteland and called it peace.
The Empire of Genghis Khan was peaceful, once he killed all those who opposed him( some say 40M). Conflict occurs between groups. Once one group is all powerful there is little conflict.
Another person who imposed peace on warring groups was Shaka Zulu.
The Afghans have been growing food in their country and surviving winters for thousands of years.
Seems like sanctions are proving the adage that ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity’.
Seems like sanctions are proving the adage that ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity’.
Milton Friedman once said, “Programs should be judged, not on their intentions but on their results.”
That sounds right, and probably is. As long as it is applied at the right time. When a program is first entered into, their are only intentions, and no results. Which is why it’s so important to assess any program continually as it it unfolds, and if it is deviating too greatly from the fundamental intentions, be prepared to modify it until it does, or end it before it becomes a sinkhole.
This the American government failed to do in Afghanistan, and the result was a disgraceful pullout, a betrayal and an abandonment of urban Afghans and of all Afghan women and girls.
Milton Friedman once said, “Programs should be judged, not on their intentions but on their results.”
That sounds right, and probably is. As long as it is applied at the right time. When a program is first entered into, their are only intentions, and no results. Which is why it’s so important to assess any program continually as it it unfolds, and if it is deviating too greatly from the fundamental intentions, be prepared to modify it until it does, or end it before it becomes a sinkhole.
This the American government failed to do in Afghanistan, and the result was a disgraceful pullout, a betrayal and an abandonment of urban Afghans and of all Afghan women and girls.
I don’t think it’s true that the twenty years of non-Taliban rule had no effect on e.g. maternal and infant mortality rates….In fact I saw stats that suggests they were halved. And while figures are hard to come by currently, health workers are reporting rise in the rates again. I think it’s a bit of a cliche – this idea that the only Afghan women to experience any liberating benefits from the twenty years were a handful of rich ones. In the flood of stories of fleeing or unable-to-flee Afghans at the time of the new Taliban takeover, there were many of women who may not have been the poorest of the poor in the most remote areas, but were hardly gilded youth…they included small business owners, clerks in local administration, of course the healthworkers including midwives and nurses, and many women who were sole earners for families.
I don’t think it’s true that the twenty years of non-Taliban rule had no effect on e.g. maternal and infant mortality rates….In fact I saw stats that suggests they were halved. And while figures are hard to come by currently, health workers are reporting rise in the rates again. I think it’s a bit of a cliche – this idea that the only Afghan women to experience any liberating benefits from the twenty years were a handful of rich ones. In the flood of stories of fleeing or unable-to-flee Afghans at the time of the new Taliban takeover, there were many of women who may not have been the poorest of the poor in the most remote areas, but were hardly gilded youth…they included small business owners, clerks in local administration, of course the healthworkers including midwives and nurses, and many women who were sole earners for families.
Should we talk to the Taliban? That’s the question and much of the debate comment below is only marginal to that.
My personal view is, with reluctance, yes, we should engage with the Taliban and we have enough experience, in this wicked old world, to do so without formally recognising the regime. We should be guided by the women of Afghanistan and do recommend that we are essentially single-issue, by single-issue, and pragmatic; as soon as we elevate this to the level of ‘principles’, all will quickly be lost.
So, yes to partial release of Afghan national funds, if hypothecated to humanitarian purposes: release of more funds for teaching of women to be nurses or doctors, say (disgracefully stereotyping by western standards) but a wedge in the door; a similar regimen for teacher training; all shamefully backward by Western standards but progress of a sort.
What else can we do to help?
• Put pressure on their main external backer, Pakistan, and cut-off the latter’s (generous) aid monies, unless they control their Taliban auxiliaries (and don’t believe any B/s that they have no control; ISI were all over Aug 21. )
• Dislocate the Taliban’s intransigence by providing a comprehensive package of distance learning up to degree standard for women, so that they (eventually) recognise that trying to stop women’s education is a waste of time.
• Expose ruthlessly their hypocrites, who, whilst proscribing education for women at home, have send their daughters overseas to learn.
• Fast-track and be generous with scholarships for Afghan women to attend university in the West and India; it is possible to get out and providing thousands of scholarship opportunities would again render as nought the Taliban’s efforts.
So lots that can be done; let’s not make this into a first-world, ‘luxury-belief’ debate about Terfs etc or even whether we were right to intervene in 2001. The problem is now and very real for millions of Afghan women.
With best wishes
Simon Diggins
UK Defence Attaché, Kabul 2008-10
How will the women leave Afghanistan? Distance learning how? Will men allow women to use computers and radios ? So funds will go actually for teaching women? We have had little influence on Pakistan since Zia al Haq took over.
I disagree with you Simon with respect to the TERFs discussion:. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’” I watched Putin being interviewed on YouTube not long before the invasion of Ukraine. He was criticising the West and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. I don’t think the West is short on hypocrisy: 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. I believe change has to come from within otherwise there is too much of a disconnect.
To me, the invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11 seemed like an act of revenge. Some group had to pay.
Amen.
Amen.
How will the women leave Afghanistan? Distance learning how? Will men allow women to use computers and radios ? So funds will go actually for teaching women? We have had little influence on Pakistan since Zia al Haq took over.
I disagree with you Simon with respect to the TERFs discussion:. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’” I watched Putin being interviewed on YouTube not long before the invasion of Ukraine. He was criticising the West and I pretty much agreed with everything he said. I don’t think the West is short on hypocrisy: 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. I believe change has to come from within otherwise there is too much of a disconnect.
To me, the invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11 seemed like an act of revenge. Some group had to pay.
Should we talk to the Taliban? That’s the question and much of the debate comment below is only marginal to that.
My personal view is, with reluctance, yes, we should engage with the Taliban and we have enough experience, in this wicked old world, to do so without formally recognising the regime. We should be guided by the women of Afghanistan and do recommend that we are essentially single-issue, by single-issue, and pragmatic; as soon as we elevate this to the level of ‘principles’, all will quickly be lost.
So, yes to partial release of Afghan national funds, if hypothecated to humanitarian purposes: release of more funds for teaching of women to be nurses or doctors, say (disgracefully stereotyping by western standards) but a wedge in the door; a similar regimen for teacher training; all shamefully backward by Western standards but progress of a sort.
What else can we do to help?
• Put pressure on their main external backer, Pakistan, and cut-off the latter’s (generous) aid monies, unless they control their Taliban auxiliaries (and don’t believe any B/s that they have no control; ISI were all over Aug 21. )
• Dislocate the Taliban’s intransigence by providing a comprehensive package of distance learning up to degree standard for women, so that they (eventually) recognise that trying to stop women’s education is a waste of time.
• Expose ruthlessly their hypocrites, who, whilst proscribing education for women at home, have send their daughters overseas to learn.
• Fast-track and be generous with scholarships for Afghan women to attend university in the West and India; it is possible to get out and providing thousands of scholarship opportunities would again render as nought the Taliban’s efforts.
So lots that can be done; let’s not make this into a first-world, ‘luxury-belief’ debate about Terfs etc or even whether we were right to intervene in 2001. The problem is now and very real for millions of Afghan women.
With best wishes
Simon Diggins
UK Defence Attaché, Kabul 2008-10
The crucial point about Islam is that it developed in backward rural areas with intensely conservative social attitudes, populated to the limit of what local resources will support.
It flourishes in such places to this day, because it remains relevant. Its ferocious, intolerant legal codes take the place of a sense of community. Its sequestration of women derives from the focus on paternity and blood relationship which is the main social driver in such societies. Its ruthlessness provides it with a grip on the moral high ground which is otherwise very difficult to define.
It may not be the “government” in the Western sense. It IS, however a means of governing their affairs which the population finds workable.
Islam rapidly absorbed the knowledge of the Greek, Persian and Hindu worlds. What we see in much of the Islamic World is regression due to the rise of groups such as Muslim Betheren and Abul Maududi being funded by the Saudis. The Sufi influenced Islam of Afghanistan has been replaced by Saudi Salaafism and in Pakistan the Deobandi ( connected to Wahabism ) version of Islam has grown in strength. The Sunni Islam of Lebanon of the 1960s to early 1970s was very cosmopolitan in outlook.
Indeed – 500 years ago the situation was the exact opposite, the Islamic world was a bastion of learning, tolerance, the arts, whilst much of Europe was a viciously sectarian theocracy, killing torturing and persecuting each other and the wrong sort of Christians.
Indeed – 500 years ago the situation was the exact opposite, the Islamic world was a bastion of learning, tolerance, the arts, whilst much of Europe was a viciously sectarian theocracy, killing torturing and persecuting each other and the wrong sort of Christians.
Islam rapidly absorbed the knowledge of the Greek, Persian and Hindu worlds. What we see in much of the Islamic World is regression due to the rise of groups such as Muslim Betheren and Abul Maududi being funded by the Saudis. The Sufi influenced Islam of Afghanistan has been replaced by Saudi Salaafism and in Pakistan the Deobandi ( connected to Wahabism ) version of Islam has grown in strength. The Sunni Islam of Lebanon of the 1960s to early 1970s was very cosmopolitan in outlook.
The crucial point about Islam is that it developed in backward rural areas with intensely conservative social attitudes, populated to the limit of what local resources will support.
It flourishes in such places to this day, because it remains relevant. Its ferocious, intolerant legal codes take the place of a sense of community. Its sequestration of women derives from the focus on paternity and blood relationship which is the main social driver in such societies. Its ruthlessness provides it with a grip on the moral high ground which is otherwise very difficult to define.
It may not be the “government” in the Western sense. It IS, however a means of governing their affairs which the population finds workable.
Do these medieval thugs live mostly on foreign aid?
Do these medieval thugs live mostly on foreign aid?
Peter Van Buren wrote a great book called We Meant Well about his time as an FSO in Iraq. The same lessons apply to Afghanistan.
According to Van Buren, the State Dept always viewed women as the key. Their job was to convince Muslim women to “want to wear miniskirts and own businesses” (Van Buren’s phrase if I remember correctly.) In Tehran (and Kabul) they succeeded (a little); elsewhere not so much. It turns out conservative Muslim women don’t want miniskirts and businesses. What they do want is to raise their families in a mostly peaceful society structured along Islamic social norms. Contra the US State Dept, every burka does not hide a Wellesley feminist studies major just yearning to break free.
As a side note, we didn’t make it any easier on ourselves by also trying to sell them on stupid Western obsessions like pride parades — https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKabul/status/1400060130243362816 — and postmodernist art — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrvpSfJM1w In that last video, watch the eyes at about 25 seconds in. How did Allah’s hillbillies kick our butts in Afghanistan? In part because we told the Afghans they had to be like us and pretend that urinals were art.