Marlowe suggests punishing Afghans for attacks on the U.S. Military by withholding aid. This is stupid. The Afghans don't need the aid for one thing. They already have a viable society. The whole reason for our providing aid is to destroy the society Afghans have now and replace it with a society more to our liking. And to our liking really means: provides better security against attacks on Americans. So: provide us with better security or we won't pay you to provide us with better security. You might think, given this choice, the Afghans would prefer to send us home.

Japan and Germany were "remade" into democracies by the US after WW II. Therefore.... That the neocons could use such pathetic and historically uninformed arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq was bad enough; having to hear them again in reference to a society like Afghanistan is simply grotesque. Bob Wright made a valiant effort to puncture the balloon of this "Luftmensch' (or Luftfrau?). I am afraid she has floated free of reality.

Ann was born in the wrong country and century. She should have been a British colonial administrator in the late 19th century. Her ideas for an advanced country fundamentally changing another country's backwards culture would have gone over quite well there and then. Ann demonstrates why neoconservatism combines the worst aspects of the left and the right. She wants foreign adventurism in the service of making Afghans realize that littering is wrong and statistics are important. Mayor Lindsay-style social engineering on the other side of the world, brought to you by the U.S. military! Ann, if the U.S. government couldn't change the culture of the Bronx ghetto dwellers, it can't do it for Afghan peasants whose lives we barely understand. Ann pretty much completely convinced me of the opposite case she wanted to make. Her vision of winning in Afghanistan requires an imperial apparatus that would last decades, if not centuries. This ain't gonna happen in Great Recession America.

Quoting Jyminee: Ann, if the U.S. government couldn't change the culture of the Bronx ghetto dwellers, it can't do it for Afghan peasants whose lives we barely understand.

Interestingly, Ms. Marlowe has adressed exactly your concern, and comes out with a different conclusion. Since the US gov't has changed the culture of Bronx ghetto-dwellers, therefore it can do the same for Afhgans.

Here is a slightly different view from a Pakistani Major Mehar Omar Khan. It's a 5 page pdf.

This guy may have some good points but I would say that listening to a Pakistani talk about Afghanistan should be taken with a salt lick.

From what I gather Bruce Reidel has the ear of Presient Obama. A former CIA analyst and Brookings Insitute scholar he is for ramping up the war effort in Afganistan. I saw him interviewed on "The Lehrer News Hour" last week. John

Any other deer in the headlights that you can think of the we send to US Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. I would think, even though he is just a Pakistani, that he would have a pretty good idea about what the local conditions are having spent most of his life living and dealing with some in the area of interest.

It's nice to see Bob trying to catch-up on Afghanistan, but I think it would have been more enlightening for the audience to see Ms. Marlowe paired with someone equipped to push back against her assertions, many of which are (with respect) questionable and could benefit from some informed cross-examination (no offense Bob).

Bob Wright's laudable habit of directing extreme views at one another is starting to annoy. Inclusiveness might sell, but it can also lead to a free platform. I wonder if the fact, that bhTv allows these marginal views air time discourages insightful people, like Foust or Carl Zimmer, from appearing. I wonder if Wright had to appear because no one wanted to appear with Marlowe.

Did Ann kill a bug, a la Obama? Was she pounding her shoe on the table at Bob, a la Kruschev? Something else? ;^)

Somebody said not too long ago (it's probably been said more than once) that one problem the neocons have is that their worldview was so utterly discredited by the disaster of Iraq that it'll be a generation before anyone (else) takes them seriously again. So, the first thing to do is to salute Ann for being courageous enough, and honest enough, to self-identify as a neocon. I get the complaints that have been made already, like Stapler's wish for a more aggressively skeptical interlocutor, and of course I can easily identify with others' criticisms of neocon thinking as applied to Afghanistan (although I think Balt goes a little far -- she wasn't that marginal). At times, I too was really troubled by the tone of Ann's views. However, I came away thinking of Ann the way I do Eli Lake: someone with whom I may not much agree, but to whom I am grateful for giving me information that I did not previously have. Getting an informed perspective from someone who has spent a lot of time on site is valuable, even if there is some coloring to that perspective. So, thanks Ann. And thanks to Bob, as well: I don't much have a

Quoting bjkeefe: OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING OR THEY'LL BE SWAMPING US WITH THEIR MUSLIN BABIES

Yeah, I got about that far before turning it off. That and the "we need to train our Afghan fighters" routine. When has training ever mattered? As if we lost the Vietnam War because the other side was better trained, or the British lost the War of American Independence because the loyalists were undertrained.

Oh, one more thing ... Bob asked at the end (maybe rhetorically?) about whether it would be a good idea to see if we could implement whatever counterinsurgency/rebuilding strategy we decide upon in a smaller region, as sort of a proof of concept. I am grievously uninformed about this whole situation, but my immediate reaction was to wonder: Given the porous borders, the prevalence of tribal (over national) mentalities, the ease of movement and the willingness of the bad guys to relocate, and maybe some other complications, how could we be sure that concentrating on one area wouldn't just mean that we had, once again, just shifted the problem? I mean, would we be congratulating ourselves on the success of this model region, and meanwhile, the same problems would be continuing to fester elsewhere? Maybe it would even be the case that we'd make matters worse in, say, northwest Pakistan?

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, I got about that far before turning it off. That and the "we need to train our Afghan fighters" routine. When has training ever mattered? As if we lost the Vietnam War because the other side was better trained, or the British lost the War of American Independence because the loyalists were undertrained.

Well, I have to say that I can accept this to some degree. For example, it does seem at least plausible to me that if you want to leave a troubled region, it's a good thing for them to be able to resist whoever next gets it into their heads to take over, and it's also a good thing to have a professionalized police force in place. But, sure, there does get to be a point where the case is often made by people who want to continue an occupation that amounts to nothing more than "in just one or two more FUs, we'll have trained these fighters, and then everything will be fine!" So, being confident that a region you're occupying is capable of maintaining its own security and stability before you leave is not a sufficient

Quoting Baltimoron: I wonder if Wright had to appear because no one wanted to appear with Marlowe.

Doubtful. Foreign policy and particular the war on terror are a pet issue of Wright's. I'd wager he set it up himself for himself.

... but hey, it has to do with Afghanistan ... Try to imagine the howling we'd be hearing if instead of Gen. McChrystal, this had been Joe Biden. (h/t: Juli Weiner)

Doghouse Riley on Lewis Sorley on Afghanistan as Vietnam. Hard to believe the NYT is still giving op-ed space to someone who thinks we won in Vietnam, but liberal media, whaddya gonna do?

I think Bob is making a good faith effort here to simply get the conservative 'take' on Afghanistan before making up his own view, crafting a progressive realist response, as he'd call it. As this becomes the focus of US foreign policy, I expect there'll be future DVs on the subject that will feature a more combative Bob. Now, on to Ann: her white man's burden speak is absurd. However, much of what she reports of the specifics--the way the tribal culture works, the differences between the tribes, the nature of life of the Durand Line (the AfPak border), the attitudes to women etc, the gaping holes in civil society--is true. I say this as someone who knows the region well: my mother's family is from Pakistan, I grew up going there almost annually, I've been covering security issues and development policy there on and off for over a year now, and I'm going to embark on another reporting trip in 3 weeks. That said, some of the assumptions she uses to interpret what she sees, and therefore to make policy prescriptions, are false. Firstly, she's making the assumption that Afghanistan's lack of a civil society is a developmental thing--ie that

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Someone, bj maybe, asked ...

Yes. Thanks for the considered answer.

I don't want to mischaracterize your argument but to an afghani ear (not that I am one but I know enough of them to know what they would say) it would appear that you are saying "pakistani, afghani what's the difference, one wog is as good as the other and they come from the same area". I assume that you are not saying that but it sure does come across as that. I don't know if you are aware of the long and fractious and acrimonious relationship that afghans and pakistanis have had. It is kind of like saying listen to this Russian officer tell you how to fix problems in the Ukraine, after all, they are from the same area and they kind of speak the same language. THAT is why I say the guy may have some points but to take them without a good measure of salt would be naive at best. I don't care if they have gone to sandhurst or the schools of the americas.

Snark-free post this time: Adam Serwer (via) passes along an interesting datum on the hearts and minds front, related to drone strikes.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: On the one hand, the fact that Afghanistan was once a modern state should give us hope that it can again become one; on the other hand, it suggests that we should be trying to understand what a modern Afghanistan DID look like in molding one going forward.

Thanks for your expertise and first-hand experience. I agree with you that Ann Marlowe is knowledgeable about Afghan society, but talk of creating a "modern state" and a "civil society" in Afghanistan is still very misleading, imo. Admittedly, I lack your experience--all I know about Afghanistan comes from the works of some French and English anthropologists and a few novels---but I wonder if a tribal, "segmentary" society (and they exist everywhere in the Muslim world) can be as easily transformed into a modern "civil society" with a state bureaucracy and constitutional governement, as you and Ann Marlowe suggest. These are categories imported from Europe, which had a very different history. They are alien to the Middle East, and perhaps to much of the rest of the world (Wouldn't you say that Pakistan is an example of a state torn by tribal and factional strife and held together, if

Quoting bjkeefe: (1) if you don't have any idea how many people live in Afghanistan now, I should be a little dubious about your extrapolations,

Especially becasue, if you follow through my links to Foust, Marlowe's demographic numbers are thoroughly discredited. I don't mean too lean so heavily on Foust's analysis (like you Brendan, this isn't an area in which I claim to be unusually well-informed) but the fact is that he is a legit regional specialist. He was a Central Asia expert before Afghanistan hardened into a partisan issue, and he'll be an expert after the chattering herd passes on to the next topic. Some people simply know what they are talking about, and then some are Johnny-come-lately instant experts. The fact that Ms. Marlowe's position fits so neatly into one partisan camp or the other serves as a tell which category she falls into. I challenge anyone to watch Foust's BhTV appearance and determine which "side" he's on. There are Hawks and there are Doves, and then there are those who just know a ton (let's call them Owls).

Quoting Francoamerican: I wonder if a tribal, "segmentary" society (and they exist everywhere in the Muslim world) can be as easily transformed into a modern "civil society" with a state bureaucracy and constitutional governement, as you and Ann Marlowe suggest. These are categories imported from Europe, which had a very different history. They are alien to the Middle East, and perhaps to much of the rest of the world (Wouldn't you say that Pakistan is an example of a state torn by tribal and factional strife and held together, if it is held together, by the military?)

Not quite. There are plenty of precedents in the Muslim world's past and present for functioning civil society--firstly, the system of state bureaucracy you describe as a Western invention was actually imported from the Ottoman civil service, which is a 17c thing. In the present-day, countries like Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia, for example, have strong civil society organizations as well as a functioning state. Moreover, none of those three is a tribal society--there's no inherent connection between Islam and tribalism. South Asia, however, is more tribal than it is Muslim. So the problem in Pakistan is the question of establishing a functioning state

Quoting bjkeefe: Bob asked at the end (maybe rhetorically?) about whether it would be a good idea to see if we could implement whatever counterinsurgency/rebuilding strategy we decide upon in a smaller region, as sort of a proof of concept.
... Given the porous borders, the prevalence of tribal (over national) mentalities, the ease of movement and the willingness of the bad guys to relocate, and maybe some other complications, how could we be sure that concentrating on one area wouldn't just mean that we had, once again, just shifted the problem?

Good point. Shorter bjkeefe: It's Whack-a-Mole.

Quoting Stapler Malone: ... if you follow through my links to Foust, ...

Which I was too tired to do last night, but just did now. Wow. That he so strongly contradicts her in such fundamental ways lends extra strength to your original complaint.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Not quite. There are plenty of precedents in the Muslim world's past and present for functioning civil society--firstly, the system of state bureaucracy you describe as a Western invention was actually imported from the Ottoman civil service, which is a 17c thing. In the present-day, countries like Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia, for example, have strong civil society organizations as well as a functioning state. Moreover, none of those three is a tribal society--there's no inherent connection between Islam and tribalism..

You are utttely wrong about European history. France, Britain Spain etc. did not need the example of la Sublime Porte to develop state bureaucracies. In any case, talking about the glories of Muslim civilisation eight hundred years ago is rather beside the point, isn't it? Present day Turkey has a vigorous civil society and is more or less secular, but it falls short of European standards in respect to civil and human rights. Jordan doesn't even come close. I know too little about Indonesia to comment.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: South Asia, however, is more tribal than it is Muslim. So the problem in Pakistan is the question of establishing a functioning state in an anti-state culture. (Think, American South c. 1830, states rights rhetoric

Jyminee.... I couldn't agree with you more. While I certainly salute Ms. Marlowe's experiences "on the ground".... I can't help but think that she can't see the forest for the trees.... The United States needs to end it's imperialism. We are not making things better or safer and it's murderous folly to continue.

Quoting GullyFoyle: Jyminee.... I couldn't agree with you more.

While I certainly salute Ms. Marlowe's experiences "on the ground".... I can't help but think that she can't see the forest for the trees....

The United States needs to end it's imperialism. We are not making things better or safer and it's murderous folly to continue.

Imperialism? Really? Have we established a colony in what was once known as Afghanistan? Was displacing the Taliban an insult to the Afghan people? In what sense do you see imperialism? This makes about as much sense to me as did the Right's cheerleading for the Stupidest War in American History, during the previous Administration.

I think Bob is making a good faith effort here to simply get the conservative 'take' on Afghanistan before making up his own view, crafting a progressive realist response, as he'd call it. As this becomes the focus of US foreign policy, I expect there'll be future DVs on the subject that will feature a more combative Bob.

I only listened to about half the tape, but I hope -- since we've heard from plenty of neo-cons on BH , as well as Democratic-affiliated hawks, -- that Bob will also get someone firmly opposed to the US military presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since most liberal intellectuals seem to be pondering -- along with Obama -- how deeply to plunge into the quagmire, as opposed to withdrawing from it, it would be nice to hear from someone who proposes a nonviolent resolution of the conflict.

Quoting Wonderment: it would be nice to hear from someone who proposes a nonviolent resolution of the conflict.

I agree. Wonderment, do you have an ideas?

It would be nice if BH.TV could get some Afghans or Iraqis to appear in a diavlog. I was hoping Bob might be able to track down one of the Iraqi interpretars who moved to the US after aiding the military. Of course for obvious reasons they may be reluctant to appear on such a public forum. I also think it would be great if Noam Chomosky could get a least one airing.

There's one.

Great idea. Also, the military is far from monolithic. Instead of all the think tank experts with their sources in the Pentagon's propaganda machine, talk to our heroic refusniks or vets who have been on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

October is Afghanistan Awareness Month

This week, President Obama and the military establishment are discussing their plans for escalation in Afghanistan. But their perspective does not take into account the high human cost of the occupation, and the soldiers, Marines, and Afghan people who are paying the price for over 8 years of disastrous military policy.

On October 7th we entered the 9th year of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Throughout the month of October, IVAW will be highlighting the stories of our members who have served there, and those who have refused to go. Stay tuned for blog entries and audio podcasts of their first-hand experiences and what made them turn against the war.

We hope to bury the myth, once-and-for-all, that Afghanistan is "the Good War," because too many Amercans are still on the fence about it.

Now is the time to sharpen debate and broaden consensus that the U.S. must get out of Afghanistan.

Malou Innocent at the CATO Institute has some interesting ideas. Basically, they amount to drilling down (though not completely eliminating) our military presence there and focusing on economic development. Richard Haas at the Council on Foreign Relations is actually pretty dovish on Afghanistan too--he thinks we should pressure the Pakistani government to prosecute the problem from their end and do what we can with both money and personnel to facilitate that.

Quoting Francoamerican: You are utttely wrong about European history. France, Britain Spain etc. did not need the example of la Sublime Porte to develop state bureaucracies. In any case, talking about the glories of Muslim civilisation eight hundred years ago is rather beside the point, isn't it?

Well, yes, I do think so. So I admit it was probably wrong to bring it up, but you seemed to be suggesting that Muslim societies are congenitally incapable of political stability and well, history says that's false. [Also it was 300 years ago, not 8]

Quoting Francoamerican: Present day Turkey has a vigorous civil society and is more or less secular, but it falls short of European standards in respect to civil and human rights. Jordan doesn't even come close. I know too little about Indonesia to comment.

I agree with you about Turkey and Jordan--I'd say Indonesia used to be worse than those two, and is now doing about the same. However, I'm separating those issues--the question of whether a state meets the criteria of liberalism--from the question of the whether the state itself FUNCTIONS. In Afghanistan or Pakistan today, the problem is NOT what kind of state you have, but the fact that in most places, the writ of the state

Yes instead of having US forces doing much of the development give the money to what is apparently a very corrupt Afghanistan government to do with it what they will. Or better yet give it to the NGOs whose people rely on the forces there, for protection, to be able to complete their project without getting slaughtered.

Here is the view of someone that was on General McChrystal's assessment team in June and July 2009. It is a good article for understanding what the General is actually proposing and what the major alternative proposa arel. Yes it is an argument in favor of General McChrystal's proposal but it does explain what a lot of the issues are surrounding this policy review. So if your looking for a basic explanation beyond the polemics of the issue you can find that here. Is There a Middle Way?

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Well, yes, I do think so. So I admit it was probably wrong to bring it up, but you seemed to be suggesting that Muslim societies are congenitally incapable of political stability and well, history says that's false. [Also it was 300 years ago, not 8].

The height of Islamic civilisation was at least eight hundred years ago. The Ottoman Empire was already in decline by the 17th century. Stability is an overused word of political scientists. It is also overrated. The Ottoman Empire was stable. That is precisely why it was called in the 18th century an oriental despotism. Muslim civilisation gave the world many things. Knowledge of politics and the science of freedom aren't among them. We owe whatever we know about politics and political freedom to the Greeks, the Romans and modern Europe and America---from the Enlightenment on. The very concept of the STATE is a European invention, as I am sure you must know.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I agree with you about Turkey and Jordan--I'd say Indonesia used to be worse than those two, and is now doing about the same. However, I'm separating those issues--the question of whether a state meets the criteria of liberalism--from the question of the whether the state

Quoting Francoamerican: Americans are too impatient ...

A lot of us are. But this is also an inevitable feature of any system that features regular elections. One is always conscious of the likelihood that those out of power will seek to get back in by pointing to the "lack of accomplishments." So, I don't think this is uniquely American, although I'd probably agree that there is something overdeveloped in to our national psyche about a longing for quick fixes.

... and too strapped for cash to pretend to do state-building in Afghanistan, the graveyard of better empires.

Depending on how we did it, we could certainly afford it. Or at least, we could support that country rebuilding itself. I agree that we seem to be spending a lot of money now that isn't buying us much.

Quoting Francoamerican: The height of Islamic civilisation was at least eight hundred years ago. The Ottoman Empire was already in decline by the 17th century...it was called in the 18th century an oriental despotism.

Wrong. Firstly, the Ottoman empire founded exactly 800 years ago, the idea that it hit its peak on day one is just bizarre. It peaked in power in the 1680s, and was (by definition) in decline after that. It really fell off the power cliff in the 19th century and THAT is when expressions of oriental despotism, 'sick man of Europe,' etc started to come into use.

Quoting Francoamerican: Stability is an overused word of political scientists. It is also overrated. The Ottoman Empire was stable. That is precisely why it was called in the 18th century an oriental despotism. Muslim civilisation gave the world many things. Knowledge of politics and the science of freedom aren't among them. We owe whatever we know about politics and political freedom to the Greeks, the Romans and modern Europe and America---from the Enlightenment on. The very concept of the STATE is a European invention, as I am sure you must know.

You are lumping 'knowledge of politics' with the 'science

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Wrong. Firstly, the Ottoman empire founded exactly 800 years ago, the idea that it hit its peak on day one is just bizarre. It peaked in power in the 1680s, and was (by definition) in decline after that. It really fell off the power cliff in the 19th century and THAT is when expressions of oriental despotism, 'sick man of Europe,' etc started to come into use..

I said Islamic civilisation was at its height 800 hundred years ago--maybe 900? The Ottoman Empire was only part of Islamic civilisation. It was indeed called a despotism in the 18th century by Montesquieu and others.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: You are lumping 'knowledge of politics' with the 'science of freedom,' as though the one cannot be had without the other. I don't make that assumption. I'm not making claims about freedom vis-a-vis Ottoman Turkey, but I do maintain that its political process and state structure was a modern one, more Eastern European than Western European in style, but modern for sure. If you want to read more about it, I'll recommend Caroline Finkel's book from a few years ago, Osman's Dream..

Thank you for the reference. You are using "modern" in such an idiosyncratic way that I have no

Quoting Francoamerican: As far as I know China, India and Japan produced nothing equivalent in the realm of thought.

Yeah, I don't know shit about other political philosophical traditions either. Let's check teh google: Arthashastra
Legalism (Chinese philosophy)
Ibn Khaldun

Quoting Francoamerican: I said Islamic civilisation was at its height 800 hundred years ago--maybe 900? The Ottoman Empire was only part of Islamic civilisation.

My fault. Misread you re Ottoman/Islamic. That said, I'm not sure that's true about Islamic civilization either. I'd wager it was more like 1500, because I'd factor in Persia, Ottoman Turkey and Mughal India as pretty serious powers.

Quoting Francoamerican: It was indeed called a despotism in the 18th century by Montesquieu and others.

I recall the Montesquieu reference, but I'm not sure whom else you're referring to. In any case, I believe the meme became widespread after Greek independence in the 1820s and peaked around Crimea at mid-century. In Eastern and Central Europe, it was still a feared power, especially in the years surrounding the siege of Vienna. It seems to me you are describing mostly British and French opinion of the Ottomans, which may well have soured earlier than that, but the countries that had the most dealing with them--the Austrians, the Russians and the Italian principalities--did not conclude that they were goners till a century later.

Quoting Francoamerican: You are using "modern" in such an idiosyncratic way that I have no idea of what you mean. The

The "need to stay to train the native armies" story doesn't hold a lot of water. Nobody, including the US military has any expectation or any intent of creating armies anywhere near equal to the US in terms of capabilities. So sure, they may not have logistics experts who can juggle supplies and maintain a trans-continental flow that maintains the pace and momentum of an armored penetration deep in enemy held territory. They might not have generals who can well plan and conduct operations involving the crossing of a major water barrier by ten or twenty thousand mechanized troops in conjunction with air-mobile units in the face of enemy opposition. They might not be adept at particularly difficult military tasks such as conducting a fighting withdrawl that delays and attrits a superior force. But that's not what's required to meet the stated mission of maintaining local regimes the US likes against internal foes. We are talking about small unit actions, in which non-coms lead squads, lieutenants and captains command platoons and companies. It just doesn't take years and years to produce sergeants and lieutenants even

Quoting cragger: The "need to stay to train the native armies" story doesn't hold a lot of water. [...]

Points taken, and to be clear, I was agreeing earlier that using this as an excuse to prolong an occupation is not something I entirely buy myself. I do maintain, though, that there is not no basis to this concern, or the one about building a more professional police force, as a general principle.

There are basically two problems with the neocon argument, neither of which are effectively addressed by Bob in this dialog. Bob is incredibly well read, a true polymath, but he just seems a tad overmatched when he goes up against people like Ann Marlowe and Bob Kagan, who have so many facts and counterarguments at their disposal that they just leave you feeling underprepared when you try to argue with them. The neocons tend to win arguments when the focus is on tactics, but that's because they never examine the plausibility of their assumptions. The most problematic assumption is that neocon strategy will work when we assume that there are infinite resources. This is the basic problem of imperial overreach. The problem here is not one of motives, which certainly may be noble and modernizing, but it is an unwillingness to concede that there may be some practical limit on the resources that need to be committed to be successful in a project of advancing a culture about 1200 years forward. One would think that after 8 years that the issue of resource limitations might

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, I don't know shit about other political philosophical traditions either. Let's check teh google:

Arthashastra
Legalism (Chinese philosophy)
Ibn Khaldun

I can google too. And I have even read something about these subjects.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: My fault. Misread you re Ottoman/Islamic. That said, I'm not sure that's true about Islamic civilization either. I'd wager it was more like 1500, because I'd factor in Persia, Ottoman Turkey and Mughal India as pretty serious powers.."

Yes, they were powers, despotic, theocratic powers. There is a close relation between reflection on politics (polis), law (jus), freedom, the state (lo stato l'état) and certain unique political developments that only occurred in the West---- the idea of free and equal citizens who deliberate in common about the public good, the idea of law independent of religion, the idea of the state as an institution separate from the ruler and also above religion, the idea of civil society (the economy) as a sphere of activity separate from the state.... The contribution to the general history of political thought of the countries you mention was nil. Which isn't to say that they lacked jurists, legal scholars (or at least commentators on sharia law), theologians, moralists etc.. They simply made no contribution to the understanding of politics equal to that of the Classical and European tradition. There was to be sure Ibn Khaldun (whom you mention below) but he had virtually

Well...what do you call invading a country and establishing our own set of locals as the ruling elite? Pax Americana? Did the Afghans ask us to topple the Taliban? No, we decided we needed to do something after 19 hijackers (mostly Saudis but nevermind about that) killed 3000+ Americans. Haven't we paid them back enough yet? We still have to keep at it after eight years? Really?

Quoting GullyFoyle: Well...what do you call invading a country and establishing our own set of locals as the ruling elite? Pax Americana?

Did the Afghans ask us to topple the Taliban? No, we decided we needed to do something after 19 hijackers (mostly Saudis but nevermind about that) killed 3000+ Americans. Haven't we paid them back enough yet? We still have to keep at it after eight years? Really?

Funny, I thought I saw an election or two over there - the last one taken seriously enough such that the irregularities have triggered a consequential reconsideration. If you think that toppling the Taliban was a morally questionable act, either from the standpoint of American self-defense, or in terms of the status of the citizens of the benighted hell that the Taliban was responsible for, then I'm not sure it's possible to have a morally coherent conversation with you.

what is your basis for such sweeping moral judgments, Jeff? the hijackers were not from afghanistan. The Taliban did not present a real danger to the U.S. - and by all accounts they were willing to work out a way to hand over Bin laden etc. that did not violate their rules of hospitality. It was a very shaky case for "just" war - and now how many afghanis have been killed for this "crusade"? and how many other places do you think should be invaded to impose your will on other nations and cultures? are you a neocon? sorry if my morality is too lacking for you to have a conversation with me about it, but maybe its worth re-stating the case for war-making that you consider so strong that you view disagreement as amoral.

Quoting popcorn_karate: what is your basis for such sweeping moral judgments, Jeff?

the hijackers were not from afghanistan. The Taliban did not present a real danger to the U.S. - and by all accounts they were willing to work out a way to hand over Bin laden etc. that did not violate their rules of hospitality.

It was a very shaky case for "just" war - and now how many afghanis have been killed for this "crusade"?

and how many other places do you think should be invaded to impose your will on other nations and cultures?

are you a neocon?

sorry if my morality is too lacking for you to have a conversation with me about it, but maybe its worth re-stating the case for war-making that you consider so strong that you view disagreement as amoral.

I agree popcorn-karate, although I doubt if aemjeff is a neocon. Perhaps just one of those "good Americans" who always thinks his nation can do only good. The war aims in Afghanistan keep changing....just as they did in Vietnam. The United States, like all empires, has delusions of grandeur and will pursue its folly to the bitter

Your facts aren't accurate. The Taliban talked about handing over bin Laden, but they decided not to, so we blew them off their Northern Alliance front and then invaded. Interestingly, many NATO countries are actively involved in Afghanistan, when they were not active at all in Iraq (like Germany)... because they agree the invasion of Afghanistan was just.

Quoting Francoamerican: Yes, they were powers, despotic, theocratic powers. There is a close relation between reflection on politics (polis), law (jus), freedom, the state (lo stato l'état) and certain unique political developments that only occurred in the West---- the idea of free and equal citizens who deliberate in common about the public good, the idea of law independent of religion, the idea of the state as an institution separate from the ruler and also above religion, the idea of civil society (the economy) as a sphere of activity separate from the state....

1. I am not asserting that early modern near, south or east Asia displayed these particularly Western traits. I never asserted this, yet you keep making this point. Let me be clear: I AGREE WITH YOU THAT FREEDOMS OF THE KIND YOU DESCRIBE WERE A WESTERN INNOVATION.
2. All I am asserting is that, as you yourself say, these states were powers. You may consider any kind of power that lacks these institutions of freedom to be not worth thinking about, but I am suggesting that for nations like Afghanistan, establishing this base level of power structure is a pre-requisite to anything else, so our focus should first be on getting them there.

Quoting Francoamerican: The contribution to the general history of political thought of the countries you mention

Quoting Lyle: Your facts aren't accurate. The Taliban talked about handing over bin Laden, but they decided not to, so we blew them off their Northern Alliance front and then invaded. Interestingly many NATO countries are actively involved Afghanistan, when they active at all in Iraq (like Germany)... because they agree the invasion of Afghanistan was just.

Yes, they thought it was just. But only because they were bamboozled by the US. In any case, the vast majority of Europeans now consider the war a lost cause. And it is.

Quoting CrowsMakeTools: There are basically two problems with the neocon argument, neither of which are effectively addressed by Bob in this dialog. Bob is incredibly well read, a true polymath, but he just seems a tad overmatched when he goes up against people like Ann Marlowe and Bob Kagan, who have so many facts and counterarguments at their disposal that they just leave you feeling underprepared when you try to argue with them.

The neocons tend to win arguments when the focus is on tactics, but that's because they never examine the plausibility of their assumptions. ...

You seem to have conflated a couple of terms, tactics and strategy, and thrown goals into the mix as well. As I see them as distinct but interrelated entities with entangled and overlapping lines of demarcation. If one’s premise is that it is the lack of freedom and general feelings of helplessness are major contributing factors to the rise of Islamist fundamentalism than the goal should be to eliminate these factors. There are essentially two strategies, without listing all the specifics and variations, available to achieve that goal. To paraphrase Churchill you can

Quoting popcorn_karate: what is your basis for such sweeping moral judgments, Jeff?

the hijackers were not from afghanistan. The Taliban did not present a real danger to the U.S. - and by all accounts they were willing to work out a way to hand over Bin laden etc. that did not violate their rules of hospitality.

It was a very shaky case for "just" war - and now how many afghanis have been killed for this "crusade"?

and how many other places do you think should be invaded to impose your will on other nations and cultures?

are you a neocon?

sorry if my morality is too lacking for you to have a conversation with me about it, but maybe its worth re-stating the case for war-making that you consider so strong that you view disagreement as amoral.

Am I a neocon? You mean like when I argued that the Israelis have a valid point of view contra the Palestinians a year or so ago? I seem to remember getting similarly smeared then, too. You load your argument with words like "crusade," leading me to believe that your point of view on the politics

Quoting Francoamerican: I agree popcorn-karate, although I doubt if aemjeff is a neocon. Perhaps just one of those "good Americans" who always thinks his nation can do only good.

The war aims in Afghanistan keep changing....just as they did in Vietnam. The United States, like all empires, has delusions of grandeur and will pursue its folly to the bitter end because the alternative is admitting defeat. The war began with the desire to wreak vengeance on the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden. Probably, as you say, they would have handed him over had the US played its hand more defty. Now the war is about bringing "democracy" to Afghanistan. In the meantime the rest of the world laughs and weeps.

But the military is now in charge, as in Vietnam. They will continue to dictate policy until, of course, the policy proves to be a failure.

Arguing that Afghanistan is a strategic nightmare isn't the same as arguing that the invasion was an act of imperialism, and that the Taliban were unjustly victimized by unwarranted aggression.

Quoting AemJeff: Arguing that Afghanistan is a strategic nightmare isn't the same as arguing that the invasion was an act of imperialism, and that the Taliban were unjustly victimized by unwarranted aggression.

Right. But then FA is one of those "good FrancoAmericans" who thinks that the US can never do right. I'm truly at a loss about what the correct course of action in Afghanistan is now. (Not that I'm expecting any calls from Washington.) I'm as loathe to see the US ramp up its warmaking as I am to see the Taliban reinstill brutal Sharia. Isn't this the classical definition of a dillema? - that is, a choice where both options are bad. But I'm with you, Jeff, that the removal of the Taliban in 2001 was an unambiguous good. Especially for the Afghani people.

Quoting nikkibong: But I'm with you, Jeff, that the removal of the Taliban in 2001 was an unambiguous good. Especially for the Afghani people.

That's something of bold claim, especially considering the Taliban have yet to be removed. I would say life for many Afghanis, and certainly many Pakistanis has gotten markedly worse since 2001.

How were they bamboozled by the U.S.? You think America made up al Qaeda just to bamboozle the Europeans in to helping occupy Afghanistan?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: That's something of bold claim, especially considering the Taliban have yet to be removed.

I would say life for many Afghanis, and certainly many Pakistanis has gotten markedly worse since 2001.

"Many?" Please quantify.

This is an afghani:

Thanks, Clay. I was going to post something snide along similar lines.

Comment from the sidelines:

Quoting piscivorous: You seem to have conflated a couple of terms, tactics and strategy, and thrown goals into the mix as well. As I see them as distinct but interrelated entities with entangled and overlapping lines of demarcation.

I don't see how things that are "interrelated," "entangled," and "overlapping" can help but be "conflated."

Conflate - verb (used with object), -flat⋅ed, -flat⋅ing.
to fuse into one entity; merge: to conflate dissenting voices into one protest Ah the wonders of dictionaries. There are many different tactics one can deploy in the various strategies that one can use to accomplish the goal. They make look good all conflated, asssembled and dressed in a suit, but they remain distinct.

Quoting piscivorous: Ah the wonders of dictionaries.

Yep. As you have shown dozens of times on this site, it is always possible to find a definition that will suit your purpose, no matter how much the one you cherry-pick is at odds with the usual connotations.

So dictionary.com is not a good source. I did quote the whole definition above by the way. Play you game some where else please.

This is an Afghan:

Quoting piscivorous: So dictionary.com is not a good source. I did quote the whole definition above by the way.

Play you game some where else please.

I'm not playing a game. It was a serious comment, which put another way asks you to specify where to draw the line between "conflating" things that you readily acknowledge are "interrelated," "entangled," and "overlapping." Seems to me you're you're asking CrowsMakeTools to maintain an artificial set of separations which you then feel perfectly free not to observe.

Really good points, Crows. Also, worth noting is that the neocons play offense while claiming to play defense. So you get the conflation of two distinct ideas used to bamboozle the public: 1) We're doing this to defend against our enemies; 2) We're doing this for the sake of the oppressed peoples (whom we kill). This was most pronounced in the Iraq debacle, in which the neo-con high-falluting ideals were readily mixed with Cheneyesque paranoia. If offense was critiqued, the neo-cons would flip to defense, and vice versa. On the defense side, the supply of boogie men never runs out: commies, Vietcong, Sadam, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) Bush's "genius" was to recreate a permanent monster class. Just as during the Cold War, commies were allegedly ubiquitous, plotting to overthrow the free world, now we have the perpetual War on Terror with suicide bombers presumably lurking in every airport and train station on the planet. On offense, the Great Moral Arguments never subside: we have to destroy the village in order to save it -- democratize by coercion (i.e, death). Save Vietnam from the Vietnamese, Iraq from the Iraqis and Iran from the Iranians. To overcome the neo-con mentality (as it evolves post-Bush), we need a real

Quoting Wonderment: ... the now-chastened (finally!) Colin Powell ...

I'd like to agree with that modifier, but sometimes, I still wonder.

Not even close to the ballpark of some Western European nations of the day [AGAIN SEE ABOVE I NEVER ASSERTED IT WAS], but certainly on par with Eastern and Southern Europe, which brings me to another curiosity of your arguments: you keep referring to Europe, but most of what you are describing politically was only happening in Britain and France.

This. When you talk about theocratic, absolutist, unfree empires of the 17th and 18th centuries, you're talking about Austria-Hungary and Russia as well as the Ottomans. The political tradition of the Enlightenment is hardly deeper rooted in the countries of Central Europe, or the Iberian Peninsula, than it is in Turkey. (Parts of) Romania and Bulgaria were in fact *part* of the Ottoman Empire, and while there are plenty of problems in those countries -- corruption, poverty, etc. -- nobody chalks this up to the Romanians' or Bulgarians' cultural incompatibility with the rest of Europe. The intellectuals who shaped Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, countries that I don't think most people have a hard time considering "culturally Western", had a very different philosophy of the state and nation from that of the French and British theorists Francoamerican mentioned, a philosophy that can be very illiberal. The fact

Jeff, you stated : "If you think that toppling the Taliban was a morally questionable act...it's possible to have a morally coherent conversation with you."

I think that statement is ridiculous on the face of it, and further, that you probably don't really believe that considering that Wonderment and the Dalai Lama probably were not for the invasion and you seem willing to speak to Wonder and, if memory serves, you have respect for the lama.

I should have written that paragraph above instead of what i did write - but sometimes i just toss poo back at people that are tossing poo instead of explaining why what they are tossing is poo. The purpose was to shock you into examining your own statement - which obviously did not work.

seriously, that statement above that i quoted - you don't really believe that right? you can imagine people being opposed to the invasion that you could still have a morally coherent conversation with, true?

For me, at the time, it was a really, really close call and i was glad i wasn't making the decision. and no i don't think you are a

read more . . .

Quoting popcorn_karate: Jeff, you stated :

"If you think that toppling the Taliban was a morally questionable act...it's possible to have a morally coherent conversation with you."

I think that statement is ridiculous on the face of it, and further, that you probably don't really believe that considering that Wonderment and the Dalai Lama probably were not for the invasion and you seem willing to speak to Wonder and, if memory serves, you have respect for the lama.

I should have written that paragraph above instead of what i did write - but sometimes i just toss poo back at people that are tossing poo instead of explaining why what they are tossing is poo. The purpose was to shock you into examining your own statement - which obviously did not work.

seriously, that statement above that i quoted - you don't really believe that right? you can imagine people being opposed to the invasion that you could still have a morally coherent conversation with, true?

For me, at the time, it was a really, really close call and i was glad i wasn't making the decision. and no i don't think you are a

Thanks, Kez--you aptly summarize why Franco's whole argument about the essential link between Western European political philosophy and liberal state structures is flawed. In the Balkan states as well as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, I'd argue it was ultimately necessary for them to get a state set up, even the illiberal kind they had, before moving it in a liberal direction. Moreover, their culture--insofar as we now recognize it as 'European'--seems to have changed in response to changes in international politics (ie diplomatic integration with the EU) and not due to, or as a prerequisite for, domestic political transformation.

Quoting kezboard: This. When you talk about theocratic, absolutist, unfree empires of the 17th and 18th centuries, you're talking about Austria-Hungary and Russia as well as the Ottomans. The political tradition of the Enlightenment is hardly deeper rooted in the countries of Central Europe, or the Iberian Peninsula, than it is in Turkey. (Parts of) Romania and Bulgaria were in fact *part* of the Ottoman Empire, and while there are plenty of problems in those countries -- corruption, poverty, etc. -- nobody chalks this up to the Romanians' or Bulgarians' cultural incompatibility with the rest of Europe. The intellectuals who shaped Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, countries that I don't think most people have a hard time considering "culturally Western", had a very different philosophy of the state and nation from that of the French and British theorists Francoamerican mentioned, a philosophy that can be very illiberal. The fact that functioning democracies exist in all three countries is, in my opinion, more a result of the recent political environment than of anything fundamental in their political cultures. Even then, Slovakia spent the first few years of its independent existence going down a not very democratic road until it was yanked back. Had

No you weren't talking about Eastern Europe, as was manifest from the specific things you described. But you kept using the word "Europe" and Kez and I both thought it would be better of you to say "Western Europe" since really that is all you meant.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Thanks, Kez--you aptly summarize why Franco's whole argument about the essential link between Western European political philosophy and liberal state structures is flawed.

In the Balkan states as well as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, I'd argue it was ultimately necessary for them to get a state set up, even the illiberal kind they had, before moving it in a liberal direction. Moreover, their culture--insofar as we now recognize it as 'European'--seems to have changed in response to changes in international politics (ie diplomatic integration with the EU) and not due to, or as a prerequisite for, domestic political transformation.

Flawed only if you have as little knowedge of history and of philosophy as you do. Liberalism is an ideology, not a philosophy or even a philosophy of history. Your statements about Eastern Europe "getting a state set up" is strange to say the least. Do you know anything about the history of Europe at all besides your political science platitudes? Do you think that the countries of Eastern Europe and the Balkans just somehow sprang into existence with the fall of communism?

Liberalism is an ideology. But 'liberal' also describes particular structures of governance, namely the Western European ones you have been discussing on this thread. That is what political scientists call a liberal state. On Eastern Europe: some of those states existed, some of them (Serbia, say) didn't. But whether their borders were demarcated in 1889 or 1989, your calling them 'states' makes my point. Those states existed, even during periods when their governance structures were decidedly unfree. This whole exchange began because I was trying to argue that there is such a thing as a stable, but unfree, governance structure, that we should call this a 'functioning state' and that we should try for this as a Step 1 in Afghanistan. You challenged me not only by arguing that we shouldn't or couldn't achieve that in Afghanistan or that it doesn't qualify as a functioning state, but instead with the suggestion that such a structure should not qualify as a state at all. Are you now changing your position on this point?

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: In the Balkan states as well as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, I'd argue it was ultimately necessary for them to get a state set up, even the illiberal kind they had, before moving it in a liberal direction.

I don't know the details of this aspect of European history well enough to say, but as as general principle, this seems like a dubious idea, especially since this whole thread started by trying to use history to inform decisions to be made about Afghanistan. While I will certainly agree that at some point, if you don't have the bare bones of a functioning state -- e.g., reasonable amounts of security, both at the borders and in the streets, and a sense of calm about food, water, shelter, basic medical care, and other necessities -- then the degree of (il)liberalism of the government is fairly well moot. However, we (the US, and humanity writ large) have a long and sorrowful history of propping up autocratic regimes because we were too concerned with keeping things "functioning" (in the above sense). It is not at all clear to me that a state set up with no or little consideration given

Quoting bjkeefe: To put it another way, suppose I (in my all-powerful deity mode) offered you a button and told you, "If you push this button, Afghanistan will be guaranteed not to be a direct threat to US or EU national security for the next hundred years. It will, however, be operated according to your worst imaginings of a theocracy gone wrong, including among other things a dismissal of the modern scientific method, no popular vote, no free press, and no education or other rights for women."

Would you push that button?

Reason I should not be a world leader: in the scenario you lay out, I don't know. I do know that I don't think this 'worst imaginings' scenario is the kind of 'functioning state,' to use my terminology from above that Afghanistan would stabilize into. Rather it would be a more moderated form of theocracy, which is still bad, but can be worked upon and changed, I believe. So given that assumption about what a stable Afghanistan would look like (see history of Afghanistan, circa 1970), I could push the button.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Reason I should not be a world leader: in the scenario you lay out, I don't know.

I do know that I don't think this 'worst imaginings' scenario is the kind of 'functioning state,' to use my terminology from above that Afghanistan would stabilize into. Rather it would be a more moderated form of theocracy, which is still bad, but can be worked upon and changed, I believe. So given that assumption about what a stable Afghanistan would look like (see history of Afghanistan, circa 1970), I could push the button.

Fair enough. I offered the admittedly extreme scenario only to make a point -- about not being too eager to go down a road that promises only stability as seen by casual outsiders. However, I do think even to get Afghanistan up and running as some less heinous form of theocracy (I'll stipulate, due once again to ignorance, to what you mean by "circa 1970") is not going to be so easy. Admittedly, my knowledge of more recent times there is also not very deep, but it does seem to me that a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was a particularly unpleasant place for those trapped within it, and it also seems to me

Quoting nikkibong: This is an Afghan:

Actually, that is an Afghan hound, not an Afghan. And most definitely, not an Afghani. Or Afghani hound. I know what you're thinking now: P'shawl!!! ;^)

circa 1970 was pre-Taliban. At which point, Afghanistan was the most liberal state in the region, though still far from what we would consider a liberal state.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: circa 1970 was pre-Taliban. At which point, Afghanistan was the most liberal state in the region, though still far from what we would consider a liberal state.

I should have made clear that I know that much, at least. But thanks.

Dexter Filkins has a long piece on [some aspects of the situation in] Afghanistan, "Stanley McChrystal’s Long War," in last Sunday's NYT Magazine. I don't know if I'll make it all the way through this one tonight, but I thought I'd pass it along right away, it being Filkins. (h/t: TS/Instaputz) ========== [Added] Ended up reading it. Unsurprisingly, given the author, it's highly recommended.

I agree. I was skeptical when it showed up in my mailbox last weekend, but it's a great read. It's more a profile of McChrystal and the army than it is a comprehensive treatment of the situation though.

The United States Fog : The anglo-american hegemony? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories. Through political or military means (direct imperialism), the imperial power may take over the government of a particular territory, or through economic processes (indirect imperialism), in which the concerned region is officially self-governing but linked to the imperial power by, often unequal, trade relations. Furthermore, the notion of cultural imperialism is indicated by “existing or traditional ways of life and ways of thinking [that] are subordinated to the culture of the imperialists.”[2] The ease with which Ann Marlowe keeps saying "WE MUST DO THIS, THAT, OR, THE OTHER" makes me cringe and wonder "WE WHO"? is this the imperious imperative of imperialism, 21th century style, "the U.S.-MAN's burden"?? The more things change,the more they stay the same(original thought of the day??)!! When in doubt, is world-war waiting in the wings, just tear everything up, then put it together the way "WE" like it??