July 25, 2007
Outsourcing my column
With half of Britain under water after heavy rain, it is now clear to me what Tony Blair should have said when he left Downing Street a few weeks ago: "Apres moi, le deluge."
Now - onto the main business of the day. I see that PL is worried that I am blurring the line between the column and the blog. I must admit that it is rather odd maintaining two personalities and two voices - one for the newspaper and one for the blog. But I have decided to go for a bit more line-blurring. Specifically, I wonder whether readers of the blog might help me do some research for my newspaper columns. I did hesitate before making this suggestion, since it involves dropping the pretence of omniscience which is an important part of the persona of any newspaper columnist. But I’m not sure I can even spell omniscience - let alone claim it - so what the hell. Anyway, the people who run the website tell me that what I’m proposing to do is called "crowdsourcing" (rather than laziness, as some might have it) and is extremely cutting edge. So that is some consolation.
The idea of outsourcing my column actually occurred to me after one of my recent posts on oil and war. I pointed out that a book I’d been reading contained an intriuging Wolfowitz quote - but no footnote. I wondered, as I wrote this, if somebody would point me in the right direction. But even I was startled and gratified when the citation came back within a couple of hours. This reminded me of a previous incident, after I had been to a security conference in Israel and remarked that the things that Jim Woolsey was saying about Iran were strikingly similar to his previous arguments about Iraq. Again, a reader of the blog came up with the killer quote. And that gave me an idea for a whole column, which I thought came out quite well. (I use quite in the English, not the American sense.)
So let me explain what I’m upto at the moment. I’m currently toying with two ideas for next week. The first is conspiracy theories. This is the kind of topic I like, since it has an element of humour - but there is also a serious issue. I am working on a rough general theory of the kind of societies and people that come up with conspiracy theories. The second subject that I might write about is Afghanistan. My starting point here is that while policymakers increasingly accept the idea that Iraq has gone seriously wrong, they are sticking to the idea that the west can succeed in Afghanistan. I am beginning to wonder whether this is right. Might the west have to accept the idea that both the wars that were started after 9/11 will end in failure? (Depends partly on the definition of failure, obviously.) I had been hoping to delay writing about Afghanistan until I had actually been there. But a proposed trip has fallen through. And I think the issue is too urgent to ignore for much longer.
It seems to me there are several ways that readers of the blog might help me out:
1) General views on the topics above.
2) Specific suggestions of interesting things to read or look at - any good conspiracy web-sites; any particularly insightful articles on Afghanistan etc.
3) Killer facts or quotes - In the past (see the Woolsey example), this has been particularly useful
Obviously, I may well end up not using much of the material. This could be because I don’t agree with the points made, or don’t find the material as useful as I’d hoped. Just as likely, it will be because one of the things I do when I write a column is discard a lot of perfectly interesting stuff - in an effort to narrow the topic down and come up with a clear and focussed line. I am not proposing to turn my space in the FT into a sort of wiki-column, in which the readers do all the work (although the implications for my own work-load are appealing.)
It is, of course, perfectly possible that this whole experiment will be a hopeless flop, in which case we’ll just pretend it never happened.
This particular piece is probably out-dated and useless. But as you
say - what the hell.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue1/english/art2.html#
Posted by: Ron | July 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentYou surely have seen the following quote many times before. It would be good to work it in somehow:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. Adam Smith, Book 1, Chapter 10, The Wealth of Nations
Posted by: Adam Sneyd | July 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm | Report this commentHey that’s an interesting idea…. Actually, to an extent, I have done this outsourcing myself which allows me to come here often
Anybody familiar with the Middle East is aware that the people over there are avid followers of all manners of conspiracy theories. Societies where people have relatively little insight to the minds of their rulers (i.e. where open debate of the democratic process is absent), tend to be fertile grounds for conspiracy theorists.
The following is an article written by an Iranian scholar who has taught at American universities and is currently the managing editor of “Encyclopedia Iranica”. It is “entitled “Conspiracy theories and the Persian Mind”. It probably meets Mr. Rachman’s criteria one way or another!
http://www.iranian.com/May96/Opinion/Conspiracy.html
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 25th, 2007 at 1:56 pm | Report this commentMay 2007 U.S. Government Accountability Office report –
Securing, Stabilizing, and Reconstructing Afghanistan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight
Posted by: ppp | July 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07801sp.pdf
I’ll be a little be more “mainstream” in my recommendations…
Just like “the OC” is pretty good insight into the debt-fuelled world we live in, the X-Files is must watch TV for anyone interested in conspiracy theories. (many enthusiats have analysed virtually all episodes of everything potentially meaningful (or not) reference to conspiracies)
Mulder & Scully’s adventures provide a great illustration of what ingredients “good” conspiracy theories should have: involvement of different branches of government, events (extraordinary preferably but not necessary) for which an “official” version exist but for which an alternative (or “common sense”) explanation can easily be provided and believed, add in facts - unrelated yet somehow “connected”, colourful characters (with shadowy pasts), “witnesses”, (a “greedy/evil/things to hide” corporation is also a recommended extra) and of course a healthy dose of paranoia and media (these days, if you claim the official line is “Spin”, you can bet many people will believe anything else) and you have a conspiracy theory.
Another programme worth watching is a BBC (or was it C4?) about 9-11 conspiracies. They looked into a movie about 9-11 which spread like wildfire on the internet and claims to uncover “clues” 9-11 wasn’t exactly what we were told. Of course, in that example, the US government was scrambling to cover up its utter incompetence - hence fuelling conspiracy theories. What about the “fact” that Rumsfeld’s office in the Pentagon was pretty much at the furthest point from the “plane” (or missile or whatever else is claimed in the theories)? The implication really is that he had something to do with it. (a good example of using unrelated facts to “prove” a point)
As for Iraq - the one everybody has heard is that it was a war for oil. A little bit more sophisticated but on the same point, was that Opec was having secret discussions to start pricing oil in Euros - and with the dollar heading for a massive devaluation because of the large US deficit, that would have hurt incredibly hard the US economy.
Interestingly, Kuwait announced in May (no much noticed actually) that it’s dropping its currency peg to the USD - and this week’s FT reporting OPEC’s worry that although oil climbed to USD80, they reckoned they were losing out because of the weakness of the USD.
And again, this illustrates the point that the most potent conspiracy theories are obviously those that could (or are???) true. (and with politicians making crazy comments or writing this sort of letters…
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm )
As for Afghanistan, it seems to me the best solution was always to support Gen Massoud - (he came to Paris in August01 - a month before his death - to ask for similar military help to what the Talibans were getting from Pakistan)
Of course- that’s a useless point now. Yet, the general military point is that Afghanistan is a vast country, not very populated yet spread out - and mostly tribal, mountainous and generally hostile climate. The logical conclusion is that it’s extremely hard to take full control of a country like that. That said, it seems the country has split - between Kabul, fast modernising and the rest of the country, still fighting in part and essentially living the same way they’ve done for decades…
I hope others will have more 1st hand insight into Afghanistan.
Posted by: a | July 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentOh well, here’s a bit of media manipulation I noticed on Afghanistan because I am Iranian and I understand Farsi which is essentially the same language as “Dari” spoken by many Afghans. This was during the invasion by US/K and the BBC reporter was interviewing a member of the Northern Alliance who (at Iran’s behest) co-operated with US/K:
BBC Reporter: Over there that hill is occupied by the Taliban and I asking xxx the Mujahedin Commander what he is planning to do.
Mujahedin Commander (speaking in Dari): The Taliban are also Afghans and out brothers and we should avoid bloodshed.
BBC voiceover translation (in English): The Taliban are terrorists and the enemies of Afghanistan and we should destroy them.
Now go figure!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 25th, 2007 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentOn conspiracy theories, I think it’s worth reading some psychology. Daniel Gilpin’s Stumbling on Happiness has some very straightforward descriptions of how many of the mechanisms work (despite the awful self-help style title). Some of the most interesting insights emerge out of our inability to correctly estimate probabilities, our need for narrative structure for our understanding of the world, and the confirmation bias that persuades us to fit everything into our preconceived worldview.
Building on those points, I think you could argue that conspiracy theorising is common at a very low level amongst everyone because of these basic cognitive traits (the impersonal ‘they’ that does everything whose more detailed workings we don’t know or don’t care to know), but with some people it takes on a life of its own and becomes their reality rather than a sloppy approximation of reality. In places where freedom of thought and rigorous academic training are not the norm, it is more common for the ‘they’ to be held accountable for more things.
Posted by: Matt Drinkwater | July 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pm | Report this commentConspiracy theories are not limited to poor countries where democratic debate is absent. In Spain, despite overwhelming evidence presented in Courts establishing the sole responsibility of radical Islamists for the Madrid bombings (March 11 2004), a substantial proportion of Spaniards still believe that ETA was involved (between 20% and 30%, depending on the poll).
The most virulent version of the conspiracy goes like this: the socialists knew something, but stayed put in order to win the general election three days later; the line of investigation establishing ETA’s involvement was not pursued, as it suited the new government; and of course, this was made possible because security forces were involved in the conspiracy (policy, Guardia Civil, and intelligence).
Sounds delirious?
Well, some mainstream politicians have given credence to these theories with declarations such as (approx.) “todo el mundo sabe que los morritos de Lavapies no lo pueden haber hecho solos” (”everybody knows that the little Arabs of the Lavapies neighbourhood can not have done this on their own”); a Euro MP (and ex high-level official of the Interior Ministry) was fined for contempt of court for claiming that there existed an official report linking ETA and the Jihadis but refused to reveal the source etc…
Of course, sustaining interest in these ludicrous claims would not have been possible without media support. The second largest national daily paper (El Mundo), the number two radio station (la COPE), and Madrid’s regional TV have all been fuelling these conspiracy theories. And on the fringe, you have a myriad of digital publications that give credence to these claims (e.g., www.libertadigital.com)
Spain is not as eye catching as the UK or the US. But I doubt that there has ever been (will ever be) a comparable episode of a conspiracy theory convincing such a large proportion of the population in a modern democracy.
But I am sure that your Madrid correspondent could tell you more.
Posted by: Georges | July 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm | Report this commentSomeone I rate once told me that a classic counter insurgency rule of thumb was that you need 20 troops for every 1000 of the civilian population. Might be interesting to look at comparitive ratios from other conflicts (Nato in Afghan is at less than 1/1000.)
That’s far less than in the Balkans, and without the political buy in of EU, World Bank, Fund etc etc. There is supposedly an now supposedly an “integrated approach” which wasn’t there at the start. But I have no idea whether it is making any difference yet.
Might also be interesting to look at whether western militaries will change their structure to deal with these kind of operations (i.e. more focus on capacity than capabilities)
Posted by: Neil O'Brien | July 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentYes - the Spanish do believe in conspiracy theories but it is not all one way traffic. The Socialists have charged repeatedly that the Aznar Administration deliberately blamed ETA after 11 March train bombs in order to win the election. It is certaibly true that the Gov’t said this possibility was being investigated. It was hardly a surprising linkage given that shortly beforehand a couple of ETA terrorists had been arrested before they could put bombs on a train. This additional well-known information could be linked to the fact that a`significant minority believe that ETA had some connection to 11 March atrocity.
Posted by: Richard | July 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
Hoppe your proposal about readers help to write the column doesn’t end in a flood (for you!)
Afghanistan -> Read Jon Lee Anderson piece in the New Yorker (July 9 & 16) (The Taliban’s Opium War). You see idealism against real life. The war is a sort of “The people of Afghanistan” VS “USA” where Taliban are using USA misguided behaviour (due to a lack of clear and precise objectives) to manipulate Afghan citizens against people that they star to see as invaders. You cannot argue fighting for freedom and democracy when you take from people the only source of earnings they have.
The situation in Afghanistan has to be seen in the context of “War Against terror” and here http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/pakistan_peril you can find a good analysis of the inter-related issues at stake in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
Posted by: Pedro Proença | July 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm | Report this commentHere’s an interesting recent article on conspiracy theories by Patrick Leman, a psychologist at the Royal Holloway University of London, and published in New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19526121.300-the-lure-of-the-conspiracy-theory.html
One little excerpt:
Posted by: hubert hoffer | July 25th, 2007 at 6:06 pm | Report this comment“How can we account for the link between race, income level and conspiracy theories? Theorists tend to show higher levels of anomie - a general disaffection or disempowerment from society. Perhaps this is the underlying factor that predisposes people more distant from centres of power - whether they be poorer people or those from ethnic minorities - to believe in conspiracies.”
Dear Richard,
it is not true that “It was hardly a surprising linkage given that shortly beforehand a couple of ETA terrorists had been arrested before they could put bombs on a train”.
This (train-ETA) is false friend because typical “modus operandi” by ETA was not a massive killing like that of 11 March. those ETA terrotists were going to leave their bombs on a long-distance train and whent it arrived at the final train station (so train was empty) and they make a public warning that there were say 1 hour remaining (hey, just T-4 airport bombing, do you remember?). This is typical in ETA: their main target is a minority of selected people (probably only a few unfortunate guys or the policemen could be damaged); this is enough to make all the rest being afraid of them (of course, they are killers and terrorists, because this is a qualitative not quantitative issue)
Many Spaniards originally thought that ETA was behind 11-March. But if true they realised that it meant huge change in ETA behaviour.
So, no rational people can believe the linkage, even more after so many clear evidences out there. Then, YES it is just one way: some people are very happy being cheated and just putting all the blame in the “others” (those evil Socialists, you mention).
Posted by: Visitor | July 25th, 2007 at 6:15 pm | Report this commentI often wonder why the USA and NATO, driven by them, responded to the 9/11 tragedy by entering Afganistan. It seems they never heard of almost a century long war waged by the British Empire to conquer Afganistan without success. But coming closer to our time, the Soviets had more than 100 thousand soldiers there during almost 20 years, also without any success. So why the hell the Americans went in and dragged with them the other NATO countries? And now the NATO command is feverishly trying to increase the 30 or so thousand soldiers they have in that country. Does nobody remember and learn from history? As the experience in Iraq shows, this is the surest way to create more and more terrorists,And surely Osama Bin Laden is laughing his head off in his cave watching all this. I believe there more and much more intelligent ways of fighting terrorism in Afganistan and Iraq.
Posted by: Ivan Nedev, Spain | July 25th, 2007 at 9:59 pm | Report this commentConspiracy theorists reveal nothing about the state of affairs and everything about their worldview.
Posted by: Hans Suter | July 26th, 2007 at 8:31 am | Report this commentDear Gideon,
New York Times from April 6 opened with a story that stayed with me about Dutch versus US army tactics in Afghanistan. Here is the abstract:
Dutch Soldiers Stress Restraint In Afghanistan
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Dutch-led task force shuns combat in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan, where Taliban operates openly; its diplomatic approach makes US military officials uneasy; US military says that if Taliban are not kept under military pressure, they will use province as haven and insurgency base; Dutch counter that reconstruction projects and emphasis on self-governance will lure population away from Taliban, allowing central and provincial government to expand their authority; some military commanders worry that formula is unbalanced, undermined by reluctance to use force; they say Afghanistan’s tribes have resisted outside influence for 1,000 years and it is unlikely that isolated population of Uruzgan will accept central government in time frame that Dutch military planners hope for; some Dutch officers say approach is yielding promising results and that task force is building relationships
Stefaan De Rynck
Posted by: Stefaan De Rynck | July 26th, 2007 at 8:57 am | Report this commentConspiracy theories are popular in this part of the world (I write from Cairo), but not without reason. In the last 100 years, outside powers have conspired on a number of occasions to change governments and redraw borders in the Middle East, sometime successfully, sometimes not.
During World War I, France and Britain secretly agreed on future borders in the Levant without consulting the region’s inhabitants (the Sykes-Picot agreement, which was only made public after the Russian Revolution in 1917). In the 1950s, France and Britain and Israel conspired to seize control of the Suez Canal. The script called for the two European powers to intervene in an Israeli-Egyptian conflict to guarantee passage through the canal. Also in the 1950s, the US and Britain conspired to reinstall the Shah of Iran after the Modasseq government threatened British oil interests and seemed in danger of tilting towards the Soviet Union.
Of course, the states concerned might argue that things are different now, and that conspiracies of this kind (official historians might prefer another word – pact? – to conspiracy) are relics of the age of empires or the Cold War. But why should they be? These states still have interests, they still have foreign policies, and the secret agreement remains as useful part of policymaking and execution as it ever was.
A number of posters above have drawn a link between low levels of education and income and the tendency to believe in conspiracies. This may be true in many cases. But in my experience, the internet has given educated and comparatively wealthy individuals in ‘advanced societies’ the chance to wallow in a superstitious conspiracy theorizing that approaches folk religion in its credulity (and in the universality of its claims).
Simon
Posted by: Simon | July 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am | Report this commentConspiracy theories seem to be an indispensable instrument of control in countries leaning towards the authoritarian model. These theories are carefully constructed by ruling elites for two main purposes, and two different audiences. First, theories featuring foreign powers are geared to inculcate the siege mentality in the society. They lead to the so-called ‘besieged fortress’ syndrome when ‘it is essential to fear and to hate the external enemy, who has surrounded the stronghold, is undermining the walls and threatening your home and your life’ (M. Heller on Soviet propaganda, 1988). In the atmosphere of fear and mistrust people turn to their rulers for protection and can accept the infringement of civil liberties. Any dissent can be denounced by the government as unpatriotic. Second, conspiracy theories are often devised to make a ruler dependent on a particular group of influence. This group, usually coming from the army and secret services, will ‘uncover’ assassination plots and coup d’état conspiracies one after another to solidify their own position in the government and control the decision-making process on the highest level.
Posted by: Andrey | July 26th, 2007 at 10:58 am | Report this commentI found Jason Burke’s Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror extremely useful not just in peeling back the layers of what AQ may or may not be but even more so in sifting through the various and quite differnet strands of Islamist radicalism, fundamentalism and nihilism thrown together in Afghansitan and Pakistan in the 80s and 90s.
Posted by: Donal O'Donovan | July 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pm | Report this commentDear Gideon,
Afghanistan
Perhaps one of the most interesting things with respect to Afghanistan is the idea that “its different this time” when it comes to military intervention. The other day I was reading a book on empire, in relation to the US, and it got me thinking about this issue – and it applies to both Afghanistan and Iraq. History is full of examples of military conquests having failed in both countries (particularly in Afghanistan, where the British Empire and the Soviet Union – both formidable in their time – were shown the door). Presumably the Soviets thought they could put up a better fight than the British? And presumably NATO thinks it could do better than the Soviets and the British?
Clearly, it is always different this time (when is it not, precisely?). But two things spring to mind – first, in a country such as Afghanistan (and North West Pakistan), does the size and harshness of the ground partially negate the technological superiority of the NATO forces? Smart bombs only work if they are dropped on the right target at the right time – what if you target is in a cave 3 miles away from where you thought he was? In that sort of landscape, I would suggest it is grenades, bullets and bayonets that are most decisive, and neither side has a significant advantage in infantry warfare. And the second thought is – what drives the Afghans (this time in the guise of the Taliban & some Al Qaida) to fight? Religion? Ideology? Hatred of the West? Glory? Confidence in victories past? All of the above? I suspect these forces are in part fuelled by military intervention, which means NATO is fighting a hydra. This point extends to the whole approach of military intervention in the region.
Conspiracy Theories
I presume you are talking about conspiracy theories that are unproven (unlike the conspiracy among states that led to Suez)? Such as Tony Blair is an alien.
It is worth making the point that conspiracy theories are the only type of theories that are allowed to perpetuate themselves, in a Darwinian sense. This is because, unlike more conventional theories, any evidence that a conspiracy theory should be rejected can be dismissed as part of the conspiracy. What I find interesting to throw at conspiracy theorists is what I would call non-evidence. For example, the idea that JFK was assassinated through some complex plan by the military-industrial complex, as portrayed in Oliver Stone’s film. If this were true, there would be a lot of people still alive today who would know about the plot – and in the information age that information would find a way out e.g. through a $100mn book deal (a nice bequest for an 80-year old former CIA-type to leave to his children). The fact this has not happened is likely to indicate it was in fact Oswald. But of course, the conspiracy theorists would argue those in the know were probably killed for knowing.
Another interesting aspect of conspiracy theories is the psychology of those spinning such theories. I think it is human nature to believe there are some “bad” people out there, in order to make you feel “good” about yourself. Also, in societies (all?) where there are a few who make it to what is recognized as the “top”, and many who do not, it is an attractive idea to believe there is a group of people “out there” who really run the show, and it is clearly their fault if I haven’t made it.
Posted by: Greg Fisher | July 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
I divert from the subject matter of this thread but the FT editorial on talking to Tehran, linked below, is one of the most sensible things I have read in a mainstream Western newspaper. If you had anything to do with its writing, I congratulate you and warmly shake your hand from across the Cyberspace.
Here is the link for anybody who likes to read the editorial:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d9cb8efe-3adc-11dc-8f9e-0000779fd2ac.html
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentI have been reading the comments about the conspiracies theory, saying that it applies to societies that have little insight on their democracy and to societies tending towards authoritarianism with limitation of the individual freedoms.
Posted by: Graziano | July 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentI would like to add another example: Silvio Berlusconi. I’d like you to remember his willingness to portray himself as a victim of conspiracies (by the communists, the judges..), in order to get people’s attention and solidarity and to dicredit his political (and not only) rivals. We also shall not forget the success and appeal he has on the people.
Thanks
I very much like reading both your personae, the columnist and the blogger. Indeed, I feel that you have become increasingly free in the later (’do you lick a dick a day’ seems to have been an epoch) to give us the highly enjoyable musings of the columnist’s informed mind
unfettered by the gravitas appropriate to the paper.
Please do not pursue this ‘crowdsourcing’ business for your column. The opinion of the single mind is an increasing luxury in an
age when every monkey has his typewriter - I should think the consensus view or an article by committee would be a very poor alternative. I may agree with you or I may not; at least currently I have the pleasure of knowing to whom I am reacting.
To steal a metaphor cheaply from today’s news: I look in horror at the torrent of internet punditry that threatens to burst forth and flood
Posted by: Justin | July 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm | Report this commentyour column, carrying storm waters and raw sewage in equal measure, and I say: keep the sandbags in place.
If you are going to do Afghanistan, London is the perfect place to start. If I were you, I would make a list of the most conflictive locations and clans and then read (or get my flunkies to read) old dispatches from Victorian correspondents, I would chat up Imperial historians… All of what’s happening there has been going on since the times of Isakander. The thing to look for is when the “visitors” welcome runs out, when the tipping point occurs.
Posted by: David Seaton | July 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pm | Report this commentThe Spanish conspiracy is not a real conspiracy theory, the people who advocate it don’t really care if it is true or not. There is a lot of class hatred, bordering on racism still in Spain, that has been defanged by democracy and EU membership, but is still smoldering and the 20 to 30 percent that maintain, against all evidence, that the entire system (police, socialists, judges, Moroccan secret service: all in it together) is covering up the “truth” correspond pretty closely to the social base of Francisco Franco. They had been out of power since 1977 and they thought they finally had got their hands back on the system for good, when they took Spain into Iraq and it all fell apart for them. The alternative to the conspiracy theory is to admit how idiotic they are.
Posted by: Maese Juan | July 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm | Report this commentAfghanistan: My thoughts on the potential failure of the West in Afghanistan and thecontributing factors. As a work in progress, the investment in lives and treasure has beenenormous and the returns have been pathetic. The country as a whole lacksdirection. Its basically still a basket case! So that’s an indictment ofthe management (Karzai) and the Board (the UN or more specifically the US)that let the management get away with such shoddy performance. Reasons forthis dramatic failure are: 1. Karzai, because he has failed to tackle the drug lords and transportmafia that sustain every criminal band in that country including theTaliban. 2. Karzai, because he is neither a democrat nor a strong man. He is animposed ruler but has done nothing to come into his own. He is oftenreferred to in Afghanistan as the Mayor (of Kabul) and not for nothing! TheAfghans are a martial people and respect brute strength as much as anyother attribute, particularly in a leader. ` 3. Karzai, because for the average Afghan, he epitomises corruption havingbeen the Unocal representative in Afghanistan,when he negotiated with the Taliban to get permission for a pipelinebetween Central Asia and the Arabian Sea. Yes - I certainly agree that Pashto (and Afghan) history and culture do nothelp the case for sustaining any degree of civilisation. Still, the buckstops at the top. In a corporate environment, any leader (or manager inthis case) who fails to deliver is shown the door. Everyone recognises thatKarzai is in power courtesy the foreign legions around him and Westernmoney. So its for the Board to make a decision and find a new leader a laSaddam. That’s the only real connection between Iraq and Afghanistan.Saddam would have done a better job running Afghanistan! Going a stepfurther, its the Bush administration that has failed miserably in itschoice of underling. I would like to hear what the US Presidentialcandidates have to say about Afghanistan and the way forward. They shouldbe advocating a change of leadership as a first step in the long (unending,perhaps) journey. For some insightful reading about Afghanistan, read Ahmed Rashid’s”Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia” - thatis if you haven’t already. On conspiracy theories - Said Abu Rish is the best but he is almostbelievable. I can believe or at least half believe most of what he talksabout.
Posted by: Lyndon | July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am | Report this comment