I witnessed a historical moment in Washington when I first learnt of Obama’s victory. I joined the crowed of victorious young and old on the streets of America’s capital that night, somehow with confusing feelings. I say confused because I felt so proud to be in America when it happened, but I was unsure whether I should also be happy with what he would do in Afghanistan. I had just – that same day – seen the shocking pictures of women and children injured by a US coalition-forces bombardment in Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province. Would Obama be able to stop such atrocities? Would he be able to fight the war against terrorism with the social and economic means to oppose the military means?You can read the rest of Orzala reflections here.
My several videos from the night Obama won the election have accumulated over thirty thousand views on YouTube. One video viewer commented:
No one from the media broadcast videos like this. The people being so excited about the election reminded me of videos that Americans would see from other countries.In case you missed them -- or just feel like being cheered up -- here is one of the videos:
It would be nice if you and that Afghan woman could also remember the atrocities under the Taliban rule. Just to put things in context, dear Jotman. Your readers are adults, try to treat them like that.
ReplyDeleteMy name
My Name,
ReplyDeleteThis year alone, over 100 Afghan civilians have been inadvertently killed by US aerial bombings, and, meanwhile, the Afghan culture remains terribly oppressive toward women. In vast areas of the country, many Afghan cannot see that life has improved in the seven years since the Americans invaded. Regions of Afghanistan remain war-zones, with no hope that the US will soon secure the territory. And who wants to live in a war zone?
Right Jotman, the world was far better with Talibans (and Saddam). What is this? Leftist philosophy? Yous hould think a little before writing.
ReplyDeleteMy name
...the world was far better with Talibans...
ReplyDeleteSeveral points:
Actually, the Taliban don't make much difference to "the world" unless they harbor terrorists. It's important to remember that the Aghan Taliban did not attack the US, it was their guest who did so.
Taliban have not been eliminated from the equation -- despite much treasure and lives having been spent. So whether the world is better with Talibans or not, is an academic question, because we aren't anywhere near ridding the world of Taliban. Not without a massive escalation in Afghanistan, and it's doubtful whether the public would go for that kind of commitment.
At this point, I don't think any of this has anything to do with leftist ideology or rightist ideology either for that matter. The questions are all very grounded in practical things and have more to do with Afghanistan realities than our pet theories.
I'm inclined to listen closely to what an Afghan woman has to say about the situation over there.
For example, Orzala Ashraf Nemat writes:
ReplyDeleteWe need your help in fighting against corruption – the main cause of everything that you read in your newspapers or see on your television screen. Corruption has paved the ground for the re-organization of the Taliban; corruption is what opened the doors for the drug mafia, and indeed the larger global fight in Afghanistan should focus on corruption and ensuring rule of law.
When Orzala says corruption and rule of law are serious issues comprising progress defeating the grip of the Taliban over Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to pay attention.
"So whether the world is better with Talibans or not, is an academic question...".
ReplyDeleteNot so academic for the Afghans living under their rule. But I understand this is not a problem for you.
Perhaps a change sentence structure and punctuation makes my meaning more clear:
ReplyDeleteBecause we aren't anywhere near ridding the world of Taliban, whether the world is better with Talibans or not is an academic question.
The West needs to be realistic about what it can actually reasonably hope to achieve in Afghanistan. What we would like to see happen, and what we can actually make happen are different. In the past policy has been guided by the first, often at the expense of the latter.
You will surely understand that to have Talibans in charge of a country is not the same thing as to have them fighting as hidden warriors...
ReplyDeleteAnd we (the US) are responsible for setting up a weak puppet government in Afghanistan, without popular support or credibility in Afghani eyes, and dependent on the 'support' of mercenary warlords and drug dealers that are 'bought', or more correctly "rented" with US tax dollars. The Afghani economy is now more devastated then it was during the Russian occupation, and the US and its' sycophants are proving to be culpable of more and bigger atrocities then the Russian Army in it's tenure there. The US bears the chief responsibility of turning Afghanistan over to the drug dealers, and making even the most fundamentalist fanatics look benign in comparison.
ReplyDeleteThe clear result of disinformation (by Jotman also).
ReplyDeleteIt might sound cold of me, but 100 civilians dead in a war zone over the course of a year is much better than might be expected considering the circumstances. I understand that these people were innocent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children, but how many such people died in, say, world war 2?
ReplyDeleteThat something had to be done about the Taliban and their "guests" I think is beyond question. There may be coalition culpability in those deaths, but I think all such tragedies should ultimately be laid at the feet of the Taliban who forced this conflict in the first place. Some credit should also be given to the foreigners who are risking their lives beyond normal to avoid such civilian casualties.
As for the corruption, yes, this is a huge problem for a war zone, and always has been. But how much of this is due to foreign influence, and how much of this is locally brewed? Would it be any better if we had simply toppled the Taliban and then left?
Finally, Jotman, some wise reflection. It's not cold of you, it's for once not blind.
ReplyDeleteRegards.
My name
It was not Jotman, I should have paid attention...
ReplyDeleteMy name
J-P, you wrote,
ReplyDeleteIt might sound cold of me, but 100 civilians
[actually, figure 100 refers to one particular attack in August, UN estimate is 1,445 Afghan civilians killed in 2008]
dead in a war zone over the course of a year is much better than might be expected considering the circumstances... but how many such people died in, say, world war 2
Someone else -- say an Afghan or Chinese person -- might well have written something like this:
It might sound cold of me, but (2,976)
civilians dead ... is much better than might be expected considering the (scale of the 9/11 attacks)... but how many such people died in, say, world war 2
Here's the UN report website for the civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2008
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/09/16/un-reports-sharp-rise-in-civilians-killed-in-afghanistan.html
Afghan population 32,000,000 and the US population 300,000,000, so about 9-10 times smaller.
So when the Afghan country loses 1,500 people, it's comparable to the US losing about 15,000 people. In other words, in 2008, Afghanistan suffered the equivalent five 9/11 attacks (in terms of civilian casualties).
So the frustration of the Afghans should be something Americans can relate to. Americans know that the absolute numbers of civilian dead take on a meaning that is not in any way tied to the kind of rational calculation (well, we lost 58,196 in Vietnam, 33,665 in the Korean War, 405,000 in WW II...).
If Americans don't see 9/11 casualties in historical perspective, why would the Afghan people be any different? Perceptions matter most.
Dear Jotman, civilian deaths in 9/11 were innocent victims of a deliberate attack. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are innocent victims of non-deliberate attacks.
ReplyDeleteIt's normal that afghan people don't think about that, it's not normal that your super-informed blog doesn't.
Please, put things in perspective, why don't you? Ahi, Jotman, every day a little less credibility.
My name.
No Name,
ReplyDeleteJ-P had brought up an analogy "but how many such people died in, say, world war 2?" I was responding to one analogy with another analogy.
You write:
civilian deaths in 9/11 were innocent victims of a deliberate attack. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are innocent victims of non-deliberate attacks.
Try explaining that to the Afghans. The point of my comment is that people in their perceptions don't always make these distinctions. Reactions often tend to be out of proportion to causes from the view of outsiders who make lots of distinctions and have "perspective."
An Afghanistan citizen might say:
Our civilian deaths are lamentable in a way 9/11 was not! The US is supposed to be a responsible member of the global community! It's one thing to be killed by a crazed terrorist fanatic, quite another when our babies are killed by soldiers running killer drones out of Arizona.
It's important to try to see things from the other guy's perspective.
"Try explaining that to the Afghans. The point of my comment is that people in their perceptions don't always make these distinctions".
ReplyDeleteI've already written that Afghans are not supposed to make this distinction but you should.
The problem it's you, not the Afghans.
My Name
My Name,
ReplyDeleteI've already written that Afghans are not supposed to make this distinction but you should.
Let's not imagine our own capacity to make various "distinctions" is anywhere near as significant as the perceptions of the Afghans.
What Afghans make of civilian casualty numbers is already influencing Afghans' relationship with the US. It's not only Orzala Ashraf Nemat who indicates so much (it's well worth reading her entire post). Even Hamid Karzai has spoken out about this issue.
Although subjective, Afghan attitudes comprise the objective reality of Afghanistan today -- as much so as the fact of the continued Taliban resistance.
If, in large measure, the reality of Afghanistan consists of the Afghan peoples' perceptions, then we must acknowledge them.
Moreover, I think we should take Afghan attitudes as our own starting point. Otherwise, whatever ones' own hopes for the country, whatever one's own perceptions, and whatever one's ideology -- seems quite unlikely to do any good. The history of Afghanistan is one long testimony to this observation!
Hmm, interesting point. I didn't realize the actual numbers. I feel what you mean about the comparison between Afghanistan and 9/11. I would probably be wondering how many family members of mine had to die because, say, the KKK bombed another country (if things were horribly reversed).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, how careful can we be? If we accept military intervention in Afghanistan as a necessary evil, then shouldn't all civilian deaths (assuming we were as careful as the battlefield allowed) really be laid at the feet of the terrorists?
So maybe the next coldly asked question is "is there more we can *reasonably* be expected to do to avoid civilian deaths?" I'd love to see a post on any research or perspective you have on battlefield errors and what can be done about them.
It's not about whether the US ought to be "expected" to do more to avert civilian deaths, it's not merely a moral question about a "necessary evil."
ReplyDeleteIf the civilian casualties continue at the present rate, the US will lose. The present approach is no way to win the insurgency. What's at stake is everything the West has achieved in the country to date.
Hi Iam Prabhu from chennai,joined today in this forum... :)
ReplyDelete