Hard News: Watching the Watchmen
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
George, I'm just going to simply go & bake up a batch - I'll send good thoughts!
-
Can't say I have much sympathy for informants who help imperial invaders
And to be fair, Christiaan, they probably don't give a shit about what some smug middle-class white lefty in London thinks either.
Although I'd guess they'd do you the favour of refraining from wishing you dead. Given that they don't actually know anything about you, and all.
-
And I'm hardly surprised someone from the North Shore of Auckland thinks it's moral callousness to oppose imperial folly and its informants.
Christiaan, do you possess the ability to see other people as anything other than a cypher for your own ever-so-certain politics? You know nothing about Craig and unless you can improve your attitude I'd rather you didn't come here.
-
Well I wouldn't want to spoil your little chit chat with unsavoury views.
-
Russell, I'm with you. That smug patronising aggressiveness towards anyone who dare question received truth. It's not conducive to anything but ugly slanging.
-
Well I wouldn't want to spoil your little chit chat with unsavoury views.
There's plenty of room for opposing opinions here. State them politely and respectfully, like everyone else.
-
It appears that Afghani has entered the language accross the border as a derivation of Pakistani and Talibani - from Urdu.
I'll stick with Afghan for the moment. Speaking English and all.
George, I'm just going to simply go & bake up a batch - I'll send good thoughts!
And bake up a bunch tomorrow.
-
I think there's something in the criticism that the Taliban's records (they don't exist, of course) of atrocities are not being made public, as are those of other countries.
Time magazine's cover this week is a brave one.
The young woman on the cover is named in the first sentence of the story:
The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband's house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn't run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.
This didn't happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened last year. Now hidden in a secret women's shelter in Kabul, Aisha listens obsessively to the news. Talk that the Afghan government is considering some kind of political accommodation with the Taliban frightens her. "They are the people that did this to me," she says, touching her damaged face. "How can we reconcile with them?"
Here's a Washington Post story from 1998, which conveys some of the horror that was visited on Afghan women then.
Afghanistan is a hideous mess, where "we" are aligned with crooks, and where civilians' lives have been squandered by their alleged saviours. There's probably no good way out. But it is worth contemplating what the alternatives imply.
-
There's plenty of room for opposing opinions here. State them politely and respectfully, like everyone else.
So I'm accused of being "morally callous" for holding strong views on imperialist war while living in London and I'm a disrespectful prick for making analogous observations in response? Right.
-
3410,
Time magazine's cover this week is a brave one.
I find that cover something of a disgusting distortion of the truth. "What happens if we leave?"?? It happened during a then-8-year-old American occupation.
It's a cynical manipulation of an atrocity, and the usual US-justifying intellectual contortionism we've come to expect from TIME.
-
I find that cover something of a disgusting distortion of the truth.
And atrocities weren't happening during the 1990s?
An ugly situation which has been clusterfucked thoroughly by the United States, obviously, but we can only deal with what is, not some counterfactual world in which the United States had not invaded, or had invaded and done things "nicely".
None of which is to say that any course of action right now is the "right" one. Every option is painful, just some are worse than others. People I respect in Afghanistan feel like just leaving and pulling the plug, letting the country decline into a Taliban led religious feudalism. But they've got too much humanity to do that, just yet anyway.
-
3410,
we can only deal with what is, not some counterfactual world in which the United States had not invaded, or had invaded and done things "nicely".
Except that they do this sort of thing fairly regulary; at least half a dozen times in the last 30 years. I'd like the world to tell them it's not acceptable. That would save a lot of lives in the next Afghanistan or Iraq.
You're right, of course, that the situation as it is now is what must be dealt with; how best to proceed with that is really beyond my purview.
-
And atrocities weren't happening during the 1990s?
But that's the point. NATO imperial aggression, even when marketed to gullible liberals as liberal interventionism, isn't making Afghanistan a better place.
There is of course a right thing to do and that's for the U.S. to stop killing people, pay reparations and to get out whenever Afghan popular opinion says so. At that point the world can perhaps get on with engaging Afghanistan in a peaceful manner and dealing with the problems of Palestine and Kashmir.
One thing they certainly don't need is patronising Western liberals telling them they can't hope to manage without Westerners around to hold their hands.
-
You're right, of course, that the situation as it is now is what must be dealt with; how best to proceed with that is really beyond my purview.
Pretty much exactly how I felt the moment the bombs started dropping on Baghdad. "Now it's broken. The time when I knew what to do is past".
-
But who cares what any of us think? It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what Afghans think.
-
I find that cover something of a disgusting distortion of the truth. "What happens if we leave?"?? It happened during a then-8-year-old American occupation.
Yes, it did. It happened more often when the Taliban functioned as a government, which is why women's advocacy groups are so concerned as to what concessions might be made.
-
But who cares what any of us think? It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what Afghans think.
Rather than assuming you know what they think, perhaps you could move beyond your own certainties and find out.
The BBC, to its great credit, has polled Afghans annually, each December. The most recent survey was reported thus earlier this year:
Most Afghans are increasingly optimistic about the state of their country, a poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News and Germany's ARD shows.
Of more than 1,500 Afghans questioned, 70% said they believed Afghanistan was going in the right direction - a big jump from 40% a year ago.
Of those questioned, 68% now back the presence of US troops in Afghanistan, compared with 63% a year ago.
For Nato troops, including UK forces, support has risen from 59% to 62%.Other surveys this year have turned up different conclusions -- the International Council on Security and Development found that the US forces are losing sympathy badly this year in Helmand, which is where the anti-insurgent fighting has been the harshest:
The findings of the report reveal three key “lessons learned” which will be critical to the success of the upcoming offensive in Kandahar: tackling Taliban recruitment; refugee support and aid capacity and deliverables; and management of the grassroots political dynamics.
The legitimate grievances of the people of Marjah are being exploited by the Taliban, who will seek to recruit and radicalise the region‟s angry young men. Of those interviewed, 95% believe more young Afghans have joined the Taliban in the last year. 78% of the respondents were often or always angry, and 45% of those stated they were angry at the NATO occupation, civilian casualties and night raids.
Another recent poll found this:
Integrity Watch Afghanistan, an anticorruption watchdog based in Kabul, spoke to 6,500 people in all but two provinces of Afghanistan, a representative sample of 95 percent of the population. More than 70 percent of the survey was conducted in rural villages. The authors claim the survey is the biggest so far on the reach and scope of corruption.
According to the findings, corruption remains the third-biggest concern to Afghans, following security and unemployment. One in seven adults experienced direct bribery in the past two years. The total of bribes paid by Afghans in 2009 added to roughly $1 billion, almost double the amount in 2007. The average bribe paid was $156.
Sadly, the corruption is being committed by Afghans against Afghans. Karzai's obviously a significant problem in that respect, but he did win at the least the 2004 election reasonably legitimately. It's hard to see that anyone else would have been a more legitimate elected leader.
Things are clearly not going well this year, but it's hard to say from the available data that Afghans want coalition forces to pack up and ship out immediately.
-
On the whole however, I'd much rather that institutions like this exist than don't. The enemy of a good society is unrestrained power, and transparency and accountability are some of the strongest constraints on it.
I agree. I'd just rather be more certain in my trust of the individuals involved.
-
Rather than assuming you know what they think, perhaps you could move beyond your own certainties and find out.
I wasn't assuming anything. I'm quite up to speed on the polls. It seems you're the one making assumptions about what I think.
I wasn't trying to bolster some specific position on what should or shouldn't be done. I was simply making the plain point that it doesn't matter what we think. It only matters what Afghans think, whether that means staying or going.
-
Christiaan - with all due respect. Remember this is Russell's house. Manners, whilst sadly lacking elsewhere these days, is a bit of a requisite here. If you don't agree with someone, that's fine, of course. This place is, after all, about open minded discourse. It is, above all though, about pleasant and civilised and nonshitty discourse. Try to remember that, when reading the written word, it is quite hard to discern in what voice someone is saying something, and what their intentions are. But if you say something harshly enough, your intentions are clear, and you will be chastised. If you get personal with people, you will be chastised. There is a difference between making an intelligent argument, and spitting noxiousness all over the place. And just for the record, I'm not from the North Shore. Just so you know.
-
So I'm accused of being "morally callous" for holding strong views on imperialist war while living in London
You're perfectly welcome to your views, but perhaps it might be possible to grant that those nasty snitches might have perfectly good reason for finding the imperial Crusaders a slightly more palatable option than the Taliban. Just a thought.
-
You're perfectly welcome to your views, but perhaps it might be possible to grant that those nasty snitches might have perfectly good reason for finding the imperial Crusaders a slightly more palatable option than the Taliban. Just a thought.
Or maybe they just need the money. It doesn't really matter. Implying they're expendable as a matter of principle is wrong.
-
And I'm hardly surprised someone from the North Shore of Auckland thinks it's moral callousness to oppose imperial folly and its informants. Perhaps you'd have a different view if it was your fellow kiwi informing on you while foreign invaders killed your family?
Christiaan: Let's see... I'm an openly gay, politically conservative Catholic who has been in a long-term relationship with another infidel with a penis; I have no problems with my widowed mother being able to work (and have a G&T or six when she gets home), have a bank account, and going out in public bare-headed without my permission; and I don't really think people whose political views or action I don't like deserve to be killed.
You do the math, sweetie. Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason, and the nasty obstinate reality of decades -- if not centuries -- of hideous dysfunction isn't going to pretty up in a hurry. But it doesn't hurt to remember there are human being involved, and they don't have the luxury of slogans.
Or maybe they just need the money. It doesn't really matter. Implying they're expendable as a matter of principle is wrong.
Fair point there, Russell.
-
So I'm accused of being "morally callous" for holding strong views on imperialist war while living in London and I'm a disrespectful prick for making analogous observations in response? Right.
I could have expressed it with greater restraint, but you kind of came in spraying dismissive stereotypes: Snipes didn't matter because he was a wealthy tax evader, people with a qualm about Assange were "the chattering classes", the death of anyone who aided the "imperial invaders" didn't bother you. By the time we got to "people from the North Shore" I was losing my patience.
And then we got to "gullible liberals" and "patronising Western liberals" ...
-
BTW, I'm a huge fan of the idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And for Christiaan's benefit, I'll stand by my public record of supporting open government and freedom of speech and assembly for people whose views give me the shits.
But, God, it would be nice if Assange would harden the fuck up and practice the very transparency and accountability he loudly preaches to others. That would include not having public WhaleOily discharges most PASers would find laughably contemptible coming from the editorial suites of the MSM.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.