What are we fighting for?
Nato's secretary general has just told me that he is "very worried " that a plan for new laws restricting women's rights in Afghanistan may make it more difficult to persuade European countries to contribute new troops.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that "our boys and girls are dying in defence of universal human rights" and it was difficult to explain to Europeans why they should do so if laws violating women's rights were the result.
I imagine few in Europe would disagree with him that the planned law is repulsive: it is seen as a vote-grabbing exercise and would effect 10% of the population in the north, restricting women's right of movement, and to own property, and legalising rape within marriage.
But is Nato fighting for "universal human rights"? Didn't it go to war in response to 9/11 - the first time article five of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked - the clause that says "attack one of us and we'll all attack you"?
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stressed that he wasn't trying to impose values on another country but raising his concerns.
What do you think?
Update 17:22 Here's an interview with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
NATO - fighting for universal rights ? No - it has become merely a tool to advance USA ambitions.
The war in Afghanistan is an American War . Anyone fooled into believing anything else is a muppet.
Complain about this comment
Time NATO was sent to the scrap heap along with all other warmongering organisations. But then of course the International Arms Trade would strongly object.
Complain about this comment
This is the same question I'm asking myself today.
NATO has nothing to do with this issue. I find it outrageous that the hand picked President of Afganistan (hand picked by the West) is stealing a page straight out of the Taliban playbook and making women slaves in that country.
This new so called "family law" - which I heard had been passed today - makes it legal for a man to rape his wife. A woman will not even be "allowed" leave the home without permission from her husband.
Is this what our young members of the armed forces from the UK, Canada and the US are dying for???
Complain about this comment
So the difference between the Taleban and this lot is what exactly? Not got round to allowing hanging or is that in there?
Well, you cannot say we did not try to bring civilisation but if they do not want it then we will have to leave them with their archaic religion.
Complain about this comment
This is the most fundamental question that has to be asked of NATO right now. What is the objective for the continued presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan?
It is not peace-keeping, it is not propping up a failed regime as the Americans want rid of President Karzai, it is not the security of oil and gas supplies .. . . so what is the purpose? To bring freedom, democracy and civil rights to the poor oppressed Ahfghanistanis - not with them introducing this kind of mysogenist law into being through their own form of government by Tribal Leadership or Religious Mullah which is so common to the area!
Barack Obama and his new American Administration has identified that Afghanistan IS the cradle of the future threat to the interests and well-being of the USA. They have also, most probably, recognised that Pakistan is a frail nation that is inwardly collapsing and becoming the future "Afghanistan" of the world.
The former Bush administration chose to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taleban but the fact is that neither the USA, NATO forces nor the UN can ignore the truth of the matter that Afghanistan (and, indeed, Pakistan) is a country inhabited by Moslems and fundamentally, Islam is a Faith that endorses mysogeny and the subjugation of women.
Either, the USA, the UN and NATO recognise that they are there to bolster a pro-Western Regime that - fundamentlly for religious reasons - is a direct contradiction of many of the civil rights and responsibilities that the West holds dear or steps away and recognises that the Moslem Caliphate is going to become a reality and it is that future Caliphate that will have to be faced down by the Western Nations sooner or later.
If the world thinks it has a problem with Iran, then woe betide us all when The Islamic Calihate has been created spanning the nations of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistans with satellite nations coming under it umbrella in the form of the Middle Eastern nations of Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia et al.
Personally, I think that the continued presence of Western troops and NGOs in Afghanistan is a waste of time as the troublemakers are ensconced in Pakistan. Is NATO prepared to take on Pakistan to eliminate these troublemakers? I don't think so. Thus, any democratic solutions for the area and region are unattainable and the sooner NATO withdraws from the region the better.
The eventually reality is that Christendom will have to subjugate the Moslems of the Middle Eastern Islamic Caliphate or be subjugated in return - the two Faiths cannot abide the ascendancy of the other. The Moslems already recognise they are on a Jihad. The Christian World with its desire for democracy, equality of gender and freedoms must recognise that it will need to embark on a corresponding Crusade in order for Western Civilisation to continue its Christian traditions.
The only other solution is a truly secular world where it matters not who one's God is or not and who chooses to worship or not. Unfortunately, I do not think that this is ever going to be possible.
Complain about this comment
"But is Nato fighting for "universal human rights"? Didn't it go to war in response to 9/11 - the first time article five of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked - the clause that says "attack one of us and we'll all attack you"."
Very true Mark but we smashed the Taleban and put their enemies in charge. The reason we are still there is to bring civilisation to the country and give them a chance for the future. However we cannot force it on them and we cannot ask Western forces to risk their lives if the barbarians wish to remain so.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Scheffer's concerns are valid, but NATO soldiers are there to defend US (and Europeans) against further attacks on their own soil. Holding back troops will simply exacerbate the security and social issues.
Making non-military aid dependent on the values embraced by the Afghan government is, in my opinion, the right way to address these concerns.
Complain about this comment
Afghan women only enjoyed decent rights under the pro-Soviet regime of 1978-92. But we destroyed that by arming the rival fundamentalist factions who've been destroying the country ever since in their efforts to return it to the Middle Ages. Afghan women are paying the price for our proxy war against communism. Americans paid it too, on 911. This whole mess is a by-product of western efforts to draw the USSR into a Vietnam-style quagmire (US backing for armed Islamists predated the Soviet intervention). Nato made this. We're not about to end it.
Complain about this comment
#5
Menedemus,
Nicely said. I believe that the idea of the two systems not being able to exists together is what a lot of people in the West (and Middle East)think. The difference is that in the West the PC brigade does averything possible to prevent this belief being voiced, whereas in the Middle East it is openly spoken (and encouraged).
Complain about this comment
Quote "and would effect 10% of the population". Should this not be
"and would affect 10% of the population".
By the way, where are all the damn feminists? Where is their outrage? Or are they only concerned about gender inclusive language in pamphlets?
Thanks. Adios, Carlos.
Complain about this comment
It is not a surprise to hear that India (RAW) is behind the current unrest in Pakistan but hearing it now on an international stage from a respected journalist is another story. Christine Fair in this month’s edition of Foreign Affairs says very clearly that India is hell bent on destabilising Pakistan by providing massive amount of funds, weapons and satellite imagery to Taliban in FATA, Balochistan and other parts of the country and a great effort is being put in by the Indian consulates in Afghanistan to this end.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
Complain about this comment
If there was a way to isolate the AfPak region and stop the Islamists from spreading their repressive and repulsive creed, then I'd be in favour of doing so.
Whether we like it or not, until this evil is eradicated we'll be fighting there to stop it from spreading here.
Complain about this comment
Mark and #6 this is what we are fighting for "We don't give them a chance to think."
Will they accept our way of life? No.
Will we accept theirs? Never.
This is the war we are fighting for.
Complain about this comment
NATO is not the altruistic defender of human rights all you Islamophobes claim it to be. The truth is the organization is destabilising the region further with no intention of bringing peace or reconcilliation to the area possibly for the same fears our paranoid Menedemus seems to have...
Sikander00 excellent post but it will ultimately fall on deaf ears the fact remains that Afghanistan and Pakistan have so much foreign interference and domestic corruption they are on a collision course with the west. The media is sounding the war drums and the destruction of Pakistan is near.
Menedemus and those that are actively searching for religious war are probably not aware of the exact consequences of such an endeavour. Islam is nothing to be feared or repulsed by its just a religion which no one can claim to properly follow (same can be said of Christianity...). The real problem is the interference of the Indian and American governments in the region.
Our media is so eager to look back a maximum of 5 years when reporting anything lets take a stroll a bit further back in regards to this region:
approx 1988 soviet union collapses ending Afghan war. U.S promptly cuts and runs leaving the Afghans to fight a bloody civil war (I have heard up to 16 MILLION Afghans died from 1988 - 1996 vs 10 Million killed against the Russians). U.S was severly preocuupied with the influx of soviet era nuclear talent flooding the world (which ultimately led to alot more nuclear countries than previously).
Now its 1992 Nawaz Sharif is in power and the pakistan intelligence Agency ISI decides a STABLE afghanistan friendly to Pakistan would be a fantastic way to counter growing Indian influence in the region. Also they have interests in creating an ECONOMIC network from central Asia through Afghanistan into Balochistan port (Thousands of laborers were working on super highways to connect the countries). They had a summit with Central Asian countries (mostly Muslim former soviet republics) to that effect one of the preconditions to moving forward was security of the route.
By 1996 the Taliban (funded and trained by PK) gain control of Afghanistan and amazingly they manage to garner PEACE in the country for the first time in a long time. The Indians and Americans are none too happy about an Islamic bridge between Central Asia (resource rich), China, and Pakistan. This is where the Islamophobic fear of the "new caliphate" emerges. Note that during the Talibans reign drug production was almost eradicated another problem for western economies that rely on drugs to subdue their average peasants.
The Taliban also allow Al Qaeda to base their operations there for a fee - they undoubtedly underestimated their capabilities or may have been complicit in 9/11 we may never know for sure. The Saudis (extremely close to the U.S themselves) definitely had a hand in that attack.
After 9/11 Americans have international agreement to destroy the Taliban government thus destabilising the region with the full knowledge that these same elements would be driven back to PK and likely cause tremendous turmoil there as is happening now.
The greed and corruption of the Pakistani Govt has compounded the situation further leading to a vacuum in Afghanistan which the Indian Govt gladly filled (there consulate in Afghanistan is HUGE). ISI is now left with the Taliban as their only weapon against India and American imperialism in the region and they are resorting to unsavoury tactics destabilising PK as well in a vicious circle.
Its not suprising to hear a constant drumbeat of PK being a failed state as their demise has already been construed by foreign agents so established in the country it would be impossible to turn back now.
Before you sound off on the latest ignorant law from the Muslim world try to see the context of the story which is really propaganda to justify more death in destruction in the world.
Complain about this comment
People seem to forget that the reason our governments decided to invade Afghanistan was not to save the population from Taleban oppression. The specific ultimatum requested that the Taleban:
1. Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda - specifically Osama bin Laden;
2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
3. Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
4. Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.
The Taleban asked in return for evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, which was never provided and remains a theory rather than a verifiable fact.
So, nearly eight years later, how many of these objectives have been realised?
Why are we still there?
Complain about this comment
"Will they accept our way of life? No.
Will we accept theirs? Never.
This is the war we are fighting for."
No. This is the war we could be fighting. Radical Islam has declared war on the West and so we did the same. The all out war between Islam and the West does not exist due to our decision to reach out to moderate Islam and let them elbow out the radicals from within. The only questions are "Does moderate Islam exist or is it just PR?" and "Do we have the stones to stand up to them if not?". We cannot ask our military to stand in harms way if we are just waiting on the politicians to face reality.
Complain about this comment
The Afghan/Pakistan border is in reality an illusion. For some reason when some British Imperial type scribbled a line on a bit of paper, the locals did not seem to give it a great deal of credibility.
Complain about this comment
# 11
Sikander,
What does your comment have to do with the question on this post? This is an Afghan issue, but you, presumably being from Pakistan, insist on dragging Pakistan and your arch-foe India in to this... So, it isn't the Taliban - NATO should be fighting ISI and RAW, is it?
Selectively reproducing material out of a roundtable discussion, which incidently dicusses Pakistan's problems, isn't the smartest way to launch some crude propaganda... For those interested, here is the link to the complete discussion:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/roundtables/whats-the-problem-with-pakistan
Complain about this comment
Freeman... History shows the Brits were very deliberate with every border drawn they knew full well that conflicts are in their interest - look at the Asia, the Middle East, even Europe they carved out the borders in a way that could feed conflict, Divide and conquer at its finest.
Also note that your comment about moderate Islam is not fair - There are dozens of different beliefs stemming from Islam, same as Christianity. Some have apocalyptic and disturbing visions while others have very humble and sincere hope for the world.
We don't live in a world of black and white - If we start believing we do Fascism is the next step.
Complain about this comment
Blair justified allied invasion by claiming the Taliban supported illicit drug production, whereas they stopped it. Now, the drug trade is boomimg, a major drug baron is closely related to the president and allied troops patrol and protect poppy fields. We therefore should not be surprised at any contradiction offered by our scoundrel politicians.
As an archaeologist, I am horrified at the destruction of Greco-India by this war. Much of the data needed to understand Classical Antiquity (and in so doing, dispel millennia of myths) has been and is being destroyed.
The whole region is growing more unstable by the day, with the potential for the use of nuclear weapons (Iran/Israel and Pakistan/India). The insurgency grows in direct proportion to the increase of allied troops there.
It is impossible to believe in anything offered by any of our politicians on this issue. I have a son being sent there later this year and for what is his life to be risked?
Complain about this comment
re: 14. dualtruthbetold:
I'm broadly in agreement with your perspective, though your estimates for Afghanistan's war dead are somewhat inflated - fewer than a million during the US-backed campaign against the PDPA regime and fewer still since.
The tragedy for Pakistan is that Zia's backing for this Islamist anticommunist crusade (sic - for that's what it was) did indeed turn an already fragile Pakistan into a failed state. How many other countries allow armed foreign groups to take over a part of their territory in the interests of yet more remote powers?
Like I said, made in Washington (with eager Saudi help). And eagerly assisted by the repulsive ISI. Pakistan will be a failed state until it destroys that institution and its works once and for all - and that doesn't mean bowing to Washington, it means standing up for Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @5 absolutely agree. I just posted ab this threat, at "An awkward relationship"; also, @5).
Russia feels it acutely because of its "soft belly Southern belt". No mistake they are sliding from secular USSR societies back to medieval ideas. 20 yrs have passed since the divorce, female rights (as one example) slowly evapourating. In 20 yrs more you won't be able to tell these from Saudi Arabia, LOL.
We had similar problem that NATO faces now in Afghanistan, culturally, I mean, not much military resistance, in transition from Russian Empire values to USSR values, in those Southern quarters. Provinces of Russia were made USSR republics.
When provinces - they were heavy religious. Russian tsars never bothered to disturb local priests and cultures, Save God, quite the opposite approach. Stroke deals with local VIPs, to ensure surrender to the Russian tsar smooth and troubleless. Provided they agree to be "under Russian tsar hand", thus stretching our influence and buffer zones outwards - internally - do the hell what you please.
Now, USSR komissars were more pedantic folk. How can one be a USSR republic, if, for a sec, there is any religion there at all? We are all -atheists! So all 5 in the Russian South were "de-muslimised".
Locals revolted. Not much, but did. What helped is the notion "grabatise all from the rich", so they got hands busy robbing their rich, under USSR banners, and being busy didn't pay much attention to Russian de-mulsimisation effort. In a haste to grab things, you know. Luckily, local priests exactly happened to be very rich, which aided the process. And when they stopped robbing and paused and looked around - it was too late. Religion - gone.
Well, apparently this method is no good in Afganistan conditions :o)
don't see much wealth accummulated in previous centuries on that ground.
But when you bring army there and dictate your ways - it is silly not to dictate your ways whatever they are in full. Because you don't peace-talk at a distance, and "explain things" - NATO has army on the ground!
That's a very dubious position, who is the master there presently after all?
Can't imagine Red Army allowing girls to stay in harems or wear veils or whatever. If you make a point that all are equal - all are equal. Otherwise if you are not yourself sure, in whatever you are doing - who will be?
BTW the first female reactions in those distant times of 1920s were not very positive. They reasoned :"What do you mean? One wife cleans the house, one wife looks after children, one wife cooks, one wife entertains the husband, one wife - washes and mends, one wife - carries water - and all of that - ONE ?!"
Soviet propaganda was saying, in posters, in meetings, in schools, via all venues - at locals' gathering - like, Yep! tough. But think about the reverse side of the coin - only one you alone the husband loves, only about you alone takes care, only to you alone brings presents, not bad, er?"
:o)
Complain about this comment
It's a set expression here, dating back to those naive revolutionary times:
Free Woman of Vostok! (free woman of the East).
Standard poster: shalwars (those long trousers) - yes. silky striped kind of coat - yes. veil - no. nearby on the poster happy husband - 1.
Complain about this comment
This incredibly difficult; as on the one hand we apparently 'liberated' the peoples of Afganistan to be able to vote upon and make their own democratic choices- yet now we disagree with one of those choices as we; in a pathetically Western manner; assumed democracy and female equality are unviersally interlinked. Well nope, not in Islamic democratic society; just like it wasnt in Christian democratic society prior to Asquith.
Complain about this comment
The Taliban was not responsible for 9/11. Al Quaida were. That they now find themselves in the same camp says a lot for the failure of NATO to explain and define their Afghan mission. I would have thought that, if you declare war on terror, you would be well advised to fight terrorists, not give others a good reason to join them.
Complain about this comment
And I thought, NATO doesn't have a thing to say to Afghani, in terms of de-islamisation, or - radical Islam "de".
Was easier for Russians in the -stan republics in 1920-s, the selling point: "It's not that we impose Christianity on you, instead of Muslim ways - no way. We don't believe in neither your God nor ours. Gods don't exist. What am I to do that you will trust me? See this Russian icon - see what I'll do with it in a minute. And? No thunderstorms? No punishments? Now, let's go to your mosque and repeat the experiment."
That's how it went, on the atheism angle. And NATO troops don't have this reason. Neither - promising bright future Afghani get access to absolutely all that Americans have.
What are the selling points then, to convince - I kind of wonder?
USSR exported youngsters, girls/boys 50/50 carefully, so that no one would think we grabatise their females, to schools and universities in Leningrad and Moscow. To return back on graduation as teachers and doctors and engineers and anything they wish. When in Northern quarters, in student hostels, Southerners got used to deal with the opposite sex on equal terms. On return - spread the new ideas themselves.
Surely there were cases even 20-30 years after USSR formation, that a Southerner would take a second wife, or even a third wife.
Well then LOL the first wife knew where to go - immediate complaint to the Communist Party! local offices of the Communist Party (a standard building in the centre of every town, standard statue of Lenin in front. Adress: Lenin street/Square, etc. :o) were in fact dealing with heaps of reports from families.
Not in the South only. Here in Leningrad - if a husband leaves family - where does a woman go to? Straight to the Communist Party office. In sure expectations he'll be then told off, ridiculed and blamed of all sins possible at political information meetings in his job place. "Are you a real socialist? One kind of starts to wonder... What example do you set to your children? Aren't you not aware of the (ever-difficult) political situation of USSR? Capitalists only wait to hear how our families collapse into pieces! Any next day they will start talking about your infidelity, and pathetic morals, Mr Ivanov! on BBC! "
:o)
(was a very effective method with many Soviet females not very choosy about methods to keep a family) One such report - spoils career of the man forever. In recommendations would be stated: Morally - un-stable. Lax principles. Left wife and 2 kids.)
Complain about this comment
:o) And poor NATO can't even suggest to the Afghani females a "Communist Party office", to file complaints to. :o)
Complain about this comment
If the G-20 summit has shown that the world is much more than the West, I wonder why neighbouring powers such India, China or even Russia don't monitor Afghanistan instead of the Nato allies. Are not these Asian powers the most interested in a stable and law-abiding Afghanistan?
It is difficult to understand why our soldiers have to be destined in that remote country with no cultural connections at all. Is anyone expecting that Afghanistan will turn into a Western-style democracy?
And some side questions, why the West turn a blind eye when it is about women's rights in countries such Saudi Arabia? And what do Islamic democracies (?) like Turkey or Indonesia have to say about this new Afghan law?
Complain about this comment
Err, it was less than 20 years ago that rape within marriage was made a crime in the UK, so I think this is a bit of a red herring.
What exactly are our armies doing there? I'm still waiting for a politician to explain it to us. Any politician! The silence is deafening. It's presumably something to do with oil from the Caspian bypassing Russia and Iran? I strongly suspect though that the figures don't work out, even on a purely cost-and-return basis.
Complain about this comment
#24 deanthetory good post
But I think the actual reason for the rape law is lost on this thread...
Karzai is using this to placate a strategic swing minority voting bloc (Shia Muslim voters) one of there key demands for whatever reason is to have this built into law. Dirty politics at its best.
Truthbetold the ordinary Afghan is hardly concerned about raping his wife(s) have you seen their birth rate ??
They have much bigger problems like trying to survive and retain a semblance of dignity.
Complain about this comment
#29 - jon_toronto
"It's presumably something to do with oil from the Caspian bypassing Russia and Iran?"
So why would the Russians be talking in tzerms of giving logisical support to NATO?
Complain about this comment
#31 - threnodio
I have no idea! Maybe because they want some leverage over Afghanistan themselves? I'm just speculating. This is why I'd love someone to explain it... now that the politicians have given up spouting rubbish about their way of life against ours etc etc spreading democracy etc etc they don't bother saying anything at all except "we must support our troops" which is a circular argument.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone tell me why NR blog is closed to new comments; over all recent entries?
Complain about this comment
What are the universal values that de Hoop is referring too? Does he mean that they are objectively right? If this were the case everyone can stop questioning the existence of God. Nato seems to have found him and got the Ok to bomb the hell out of anyone they find disagreeing with their executive status. Ave Imperator, Ave Senatus Populesque Romanus! Fascism is the heir to Post modernism!
Complain about this comment
It may be politic and he may be just going through the motions to effect the atmosphere, but, if Jaap Scheffer is serious about not 'imposing values' then the 'west' will have armed forces stationed in Afghanistan for eternity!
When will the 'west' learn that this is a war for minds every bit as much as anything else: Of course we should be trying to develop and create an atmosphere in which western values of equality of sexes, equality of rights, free speech and freedom of religion are available to all. Jaap Scheffer can spout all the platitudes he likes about not wanting to impose values but his words are utterly redundant as well as repugnant to people who 'value' the Rights of Man. NATO forces are there to defesat Islamic fundamentalist terrorists loosely described as Al Queda; alongside that aim must be the emergence of 'democratic principles' amongst the indigenous people otherwise there is no piint at all in the mission because the bigoted, zealot Mullahs aided by ignorant, illiterate Taliban will always dominate an unenlightened, middle ages lifestyle.
I have always supported the US-UK and Coalition of the willing forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
However, if we in the west are seriously suggesting one more Armed Forces person's life should be spent defending the sickening and uttterly inhumane Sharia laws then I say bring them all home now.
We can defend against Al Queda in a different manner.
If, however, we are keeping our forces there partly to ensure 'democratic' values are instilled that gradually bring about the reduction and in some aspects abandonment of Sharia Law then the troops should continue their brave and noble efforts.
Complain about this comment
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that "our boys and girls are dying in defence of universal human rights" - nice if it were true!
But if there is one thing that is worth 'fighting for' that is universal human rights for all peoples and all genders. However the fighting is not best done with military forces. The anti-women legislation that has apparently just been passed into law in Afghanistan is abhorrent. However that the regime that we support (indeed our puppet regime!) instigated such legislation should show us the absolute folly of believing that my enemy's enemy is my friend. Karzai must be dumped PDQ - we simply cannot treat such people as our friends.
Complain about this comment
I fear we have reached the point at which NATO simply have to win something. Nobody really won in the Balkans although I guess you can politically we had a result, certainly nobody won in Iraq. The problem with Afghanistan is that there is no exit strategy. It is even possible if the Taliban called a ceasefire and joined the electoral process that they could share power in the next administration but that is not going to happen. There is no obvious winner and my guess is that it will drag on until public opinion in the west is so turned off by the whole thing that an excuse will have to be found to pull out. But it won't end well and it won't end soon.
Complain about this comment
#36 - John_from_Hendon
May I add that, while I share JfH's distaste for the new Afghan legislation, I do not see how NATO can be at war in Afghanistan in order to 'promote democracy' then tell them what laws they may or may not enact. We can't have our cake and eat it.
Complain about this comment
threnodio and jon_toronto,
haven't heard here it's a tubes' issue. will keep an eye on analytical articles, but so far not one mention of tubes/gas/oil in that, as far as I remember. may be I skipped.
we did not care much here, about Afghanistan, un-pleasant memories of exit without victory, bankruptsy, all in vain, lives and building effort and education effort all the billions spent, all in vain. whatever normal there were established, with much difficulty - was destroyed when we left. we left basically our people there, by that time, who were all killed, read - predated them, all very un-pleasant to look back at.
should have calculated own forces in advance, can we do it - before starting it, but somehow it seemed to us we could, and the end result was we had no money to continue. who'd count on such oil price fall. ]
sure thing darling USA and the West in general played a hand there, sponsoring, or may be arranging with oil countries for oil price drop as well, go figure. Certainly the Afghani who we fought were being miraculously equipped and re-equipped again and again, and as to the amount of people there - no problem for them to re-new forces.
Add to these memoirs the shout in the world "Ah! Them! Invading!", and, like, it's hardly a surprise nobody is interested in Afghanistan here again.
what, to step on the same rakes twice. what has changed, exactly?
can the oil price be moved down artificially again, to bankrupt us? I don't know, but I guess, if you pay for the trick, it can.
is the West less inclined to shout "Ah! Them! Invading! those Russians, and their leopard spots!" three ha ha
what has changed is only for worse. USSR could come up with far larger army in Afghanistan than Russia. 300 million is not 140.
Before, apparently planning to make Afghanistan a 16th USSR republic, we were able to accommodate them within 5 muslim USSR neighbours, as understandable people to each other, and full services nearby - infrustructure that could be stretched, jobs, market to sell to, universities, a hundred times more easier to incorporate newcomers into some friendly climate. These days - where to?
Even to get there we now have to hop over independent muslim countries. not connected, not tied in with us, no idea how much willing to have Afghanistan with open borders for neighbours. Likely, absolutely not fascinated. They have hardly themselves scambled out of USSR collapse, those who did, and don't want any burdens and any radical islam ideas and un-rest spreading to them. Basically, nowhere to accommodate Afghanistan anymore. 100 times more difficult to service and to reach.
So we wouldn't even remember the name, if not for US imploring recently kind of "how about you help a little bit".
Complain about this comment
dualtruthbetold #19 (and, to lesser extent #14) -- cogent, thank you.
Mark Mardell writes: "Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stressed that he wasn't trying to impose values on another country but raising his concerns. What do you think?"
I think we (Western Europeans) have been tainted already by association & hope we get out of Afghanistan, yesterday!
Complain about this comment
as a side note, saw 4 Afghani speaking on St. Petersburg TV channel. Caught in crossing our borderline with Finland! Left foot-prints in snow, poor Southerners, said they counted on a snow-storm, which the meteo office lied to them about apparently :o) - so were easy to snatch for the border-guards.
For the border guards in St. Petersburg, it's kind of an anniversary - the 57th, 58th, 59th and the 60th "walker" over to Finland, through the forest, caught since this year beg. That's why on TV, border guards boasting a bit. And 24 of them were Afghani!
Somebody definitely spreads the news in Afghanistan, that it's a sure way to get to Europe - simply walk North through whole Russia, LOL, find St. Petersburg, and there it's a piece of cake to walk to Finland and then by boat to Sweden or I don't know where they actually plan to move from Finland to.
Now, for these chaps the route took 2 years! Not a single document about them. No resistance to the borderline guards (like, they said - none of Afghani did). 350 dollars combined for the 4 of them. No bags or belongings. No arms or narcotics. One spare set of clothes only, for each. The guards said it is typical.
The Afghani said they spent a long time in Cherkizovsky market in Moscow, earning there money for the continuation of the trip. Learned Russian! That market is a huge like flea market, where hundreds sell Chinese clothes, things and what not. Relics of USSR collapse times. Can become in fashion now again! to buy clothes in the flea market, in these crisisy times, LOL.
The journalist wondered what happens to Afghani caught in border crossing, got answer that they are flied back by Moscow-Kabul weekly flight forcefully returned back home. And nothing happens to them in Afghanistan either, as it is not a criminal offence by Afghanistan law to cross a borderline illegally. It is a violation but classified under administrative law, by a fine. So these will join up the previous 20 this year, will be shipped back.
Looking at all this I had only one impression - that it's plain stupid to send them back. Imagine such an expedition! 2 years wondering a foreign country without documents, language or money. Living hell knows where doing all small jobs on the way. Constantly scared of police. Survived. Learned language. Got jobs. Made some money! And - returned back.
I think these have proved all one only wants to have in an immigrant - excellent health, good brains, excellent entrepreneural qualities :o), ability to adapt to the local culture, language learned, basically, look like locals now! What else do you want? No criminal record tracing behind, as police said. At least - they don't want them for nothing. And - sent back.
Afghani walk cross border with Turkmenia, who guards its border vaguely.
Border Turkmenia-Russia simply doesn't exist, we are on no visa terms, as "ex". So - voila.
Complain about this comment
America's false allies will do anything, find any excuse no matter how lame or miserable that they can come upt with to avoid assuming their fair share of responsibility in what was supposed to be a MUTUAL defense treaty. Worthless as allies, the entire NATO scam was just a cover for America defending Europe from the USSR. There is no more USSR and NATO has no useful function, certainly not for America. Europeans wouldn't have the political will to protect even themselves as they have proven time and again, they certainly will not make any real sacrifice to fight on America's behalf now. America should pull out seeing this stark and unavoidable fact. America is as much at war with Europe as it is with al Qaeda. Some protectionism at home to promote American self interests to the exclusion of others is what is needed most by Americans now.
This trip has proven Obama is just as incompetent as his predecessor. It wasn't until April of his first year in office that Bush demonstrated just how weak he was with his meek reaction in the Chinese plane incident. Obama has beaten his record proving his incompetence in March. Today in early April, he looked more like a high school student who had forgotten his lines in a school play in his fiasco of a "town meeting" in France. His efforts at "mediation" between France and China to come up with words in a communique about tax havens a sorry show. Compared to his counterparts Sarko, Gordo, and Angel Eyes, he is a Lilliputian among Lilliputians. What a truly miserable bunch they are. Pathetic. The world is doomed.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAurelius
Your hero Donny Rumsfeld told us that if others wouldn't join, then the USA would fight its wars alone.
Assuming that you are comfortable fighting for an Afghanistan in which the Government sends a man to jail for downloading an article about women's rights... then we cordially invite you to live up to Rummy's promise.
You start illegal wars - you fight them on your own. Don't expect us to come and help you - we will not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am glad that the Soviet Union collapsed.
I regret, however, that they didn't get to sort out Afghanistan first.
(Am I wicked? Probably. But I'd rather be 'wicked' than a Dhimmi).
Complain about this comment
No matter what you believe the pretense for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to be, whether you believed it to be right or wrong, or even whether it should have been carried out in the first place; there are now some worrisome realities.
Prior to our invasion, a brutal fundamentalist regime was in place that generally suppressed afghan society. Banning of theatres, singing and dancing, women from all professions except the medicine, public beatings, sporadic ethnic cleansing, destruction of world heritage sites.
There is a moralistic basis for and against the war. Civilian casualties have clearly resulted, but if a viable future can be ensured perhaps this an almost justifiable sacrifice? Or at least making the best of the current situation we find ourselves in.
However was it a threat to the outside world? Prior to our invasion probably NOT. Except for the sheltering of Al Qua-ida members. But as a result of our actions the Taliban pose a greater threat to another state... Pakistan, than at any time in its history. Its army has been consistently defeated, and as we saw in Lahore recently violence is spreading to major cities.
To leave now, after displacing the Taliban into Pakistan, would not only embolden extremists but also leave open the possibility of a Nuclear armed Taliban/AQ power in the form of a defeated Pakistan.
Oh the joys of 2 terms of George W. Bush. PS: They already defeated one superpower in the form the USSR, would more troops help? There were more than 100K thousand troops at the height of Soviet Occupation.
Complain about this comment
Posts 11 and 8,
There is a common thread of the the law of unintended consequences wreaking havoc when a country pokes it's nose in where it should not. The US helped create the monster that it is trying to slay now, by subversively fighting the Soviets. (what will India be fighting in the future) How well did that work?
All that conflict feeds the military machine and people make money off that chaos. Why would we want to stop and evaluate the rationality of our actions when we are making money? (of course I don't believe that, but some may) That really is at the root of all these situations...money and power. We have mistreated and maligned our fellow humans for those exact reasons for milennia.
We as responsible nations need to be very considerate about our actions, because sovereign nations and people do not accept having the boots of others put on their throats. The US rejected the British for that and the middle eastern nations reject that and our religious dogma being foisted upon them. Big picture implications need to be addressed by multi-dimensional thinking....
This is really quite simple, if we all treated others correctly....would not be at the crossroads we find. Then again, nations actions do not always represent the desires of the people...and I hope that our emulation of the Roman Empire has not caused a complete collapse of the world's ability to be rational. We have not demonstrated the wisdom of Solomon historically. Obama is trying to be a little more reasonable and circumspect....let's hope the spirit of intention meets the reality of action. NATO is a great concept, if we approach the situations correctly and do not reach beyond our ability to sustain corrections.
Complain about this comment
The one thing that is really inappropriate in discussing Afghanistan and radical Islam, is the notion of Christendom. There is nothing remotely Christian about the motivation of the Western participants.
The term does not apply to Britain (since the Reformation of the 16th century) nor to the United States. The use of the term is seriously anachronistic.
The presence of the redefined NATO in what is out of theatre must have everything to do with good, old-fashioned, secular REALPOLITIK.
There is a reason for the Afghanistan mission (though despite Mynheer Scheffer I still don't get what it could be!) but the talk of "universal human rights" seems somewhat far-fetched as a rationale. Whatever the West is up to(a mystery to me at least),it has certainly not got the credentials to effectively do what it is setting out to achieve in that part of the world. Drugged-up western societies in which numerous citizens spend a fortune buying illegal chemicals to enable them to "enhance" their lives (if affluent enough to avoid the social consequences of self-inflicted addiction) derived from the rolling poppyfields of the Hindu Kush. The profits providing more arms to the irate locals.
Alliances exist only if there is a "FEINDBILD". If such is missing, then one must be found. It needs the "other" to define itself. Hence the emotive language of "barbarians", "fascists", "misogynist" "medieval". NATO needs an enemy to justify military power and the massive investment in arms. (Cynics would say that NATO needs a sandbox to test its equipment and that casualties occur on manoevres just as much as in theatre). After all look at the carnage on our roads. That is tolerated. Since 2001 some 350 British service people have been killed. Over the same interval of time some 25,000 deaths and 200,000 injuries have occured on British roads. Individual tragedies are not really that important to us or else we would reorganize our transport.
Perhaps it is just that NATO needs a raison d'etre in the post Cold War world.
All very sad really. It could go on for years and years.
Complain about this comment
Given the discussion on this thread about "what are we doing in Afghanistan?", one could be forgiven for forgetting China exists at all. That is curious, given that the Chinese government exert more influence on Pakistan than the USA, and have developed economic ties with Pakistan that constitute strategic interests.
China has bankrolled a six lane highway from western china, down through the swat valley and central pakistan, then on the deep water port of Gada, which happens to be situated conveniently at the mouth of the persian gulf. The chinese built Gada, from start to finish. It is a very modern port.
So the point about brewing conflict with pakistan should not be lost. Any war in the pakistani tribal areas that threatens the interests of independent pakistani interests is a proxy war with china.
Now given the sheer weight of potential chinese military authority in that region, it should follow as to why pakistan cannot be relied upon to offer a useful route to resupply afghanistan. It follows why russian good will is a useful asset in negotiations concerning the future of Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
"perhaps it is just that NATO needs a raison d'etre in the post Cold War world"
very much perhaps. Imagine, having built up such a military machine, system of bases, stocks and piles and shafts and what not - and not a single bullet of it was spent LOL to defeat USSR.
financial bankruptsy worked clean and nice. and where to put away then all those stocks and piles of stuff and people bent on applying these, accummulated?
turning the situation around, (from our own pathetic Russian experience LOL what works to collapse us. oil price at 4.8 certainly works miracles)
then if NATO wants to defeat Afghanistan, it can apply the same conventional arms - money. How about cutting the money branch on what Afghanistan is sitting, narcotics? instead of appeasing locals, "you plant and grow, we won't nterfere, only don't you make war, be peaceful "agriculturals". This would go to the heart of the issue.
Plus under-cut all friendly supply of armament and finance coming from radical islam centres. Does Saudi Arabia have a hand in it? Only Pakistan, alone?
If NATO does want to defeat Afghanistan, of course.
Complain about this comment
When USA does want to defeat someone they know the way.
I even start doubting they wanted to defeat us in the Cold War...
We are sorry if our Gorbachyov appeared un-timely. LOL!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
WebAlice, the US did want to defeat the USSR and its evil empire in the cold war more than you know. Why else would it have built and targeted 20,000 hydrogen bombs ready to be launched at it on a moment's notice? Americans preferred death to the enslavement of a Soviet world which is the only reason it had the political will to win. In the end, it found a strategy that worked. By escalating the arms race, it bankurpted it. How stupid of the Soviet government, once you have enough weapons to blow up the world fifty times over that no one can stop, what more could you possibly need? The cold war is almost 20 years over but the Russians are making the same dumb mistake again. Some things never change.
It was Europe that didn't want the USSR defeated. In fact many West Europeans were so dumb, they wanted to be part of it. On the one hand they have not acknowledged that it was the US that defeated it (they'll claim it was anything else from the pope to "enlightement") while on the other hand they have never forgiven it. In the end, they will get their wish, not by joining the extinct USSR but by recreating it as the EUSSR, a centrally planned economy ruled by elites who monopolize power and ruthlessly supress all political oppositon. This is the operative mentality of Europe and has been for well over a thousand years. Any concessions to real democracy they've made have been superficial, largely exaggerated, recent, and a minor abberation that will shortly disappear. Their way of viewing the world is taylor made for an EUSSR.
Complain about this comment
Okay, okay, MAvriysha, don't worry. The main thing - don't get excited again. I belive you you wanted to kill us, die yourself, blast the whole Europe as a by-product. All very sensible, reasonable, mummy Russia understands, mummy Russia knows.
Complain about this comment
Hm. Fighting wars with distant causes - America has a long history of supporting the wrong folks - tyrants, the corrupt, short-sighted in the extreme. As have the French, and the British, and probably the Babylonians and the Romans. Anyone with power.
It is incredibly hard (although not impossible) to for a moment wipe out those images I saw that morning in September. Big planes, giant buildings, screaming voices, collapse, death. For I remember it as well, as vividly, and maybe with more emotion than my wedding day, or my father's death.
NATO is convenient. It has standing troops, equipment, etc. A ready made army. If America is going to fight a war (and when are we not fighting a war?), getting NATO involved would be expedient. Not very pretty, but as I say, convenient.
As an American, I do wish we would stop fighting just for a little while, either secret (CIA-type) actions or the current wars. One can get a little weary of such things, even when they are not occurring on your own soil. The coffins continue to come home.
Personally, I do not know what is the best thing to do with Afghanistan. It is as messed up as most wars, with multi-national, multi-tribal, multi-you-name-it competing interests. Is there anyone wise enough to sort this out? Is there any good solution?
I would like to throw up my hands and say to heck with this. I wonder though. Would I look back on it the way I look back on our non-involvement in the numerous horrific African tribal genocides, and well, the list is too long. The atrocities allowed to happen in the world too many. And if your country has armed forces, you too can look at the blood on your hands. There really are things worth dying for.
America has not always chosen to go to war for very good reasons, to say the least. This war? It will continue. If no one but Americans fight, it will continue. For good or ill? I do not know. I suspect the outcome will be ugly. And everyday, I do count the coffins that come home.
Complain about this comment
Sight has been lost on the causes of the Afghan war. Someone attacks New York, someone has to pay, Osama is in Afghanistan, therefore we must go to war there. Leaving aside for a moment that this is based on information from the same spooks who identified WMDs in Iraq and the 45 minute warning thing, the idea that you could go into a vast and barren territory, identify a terrorist group and take them out surgically was at best naive.
So the whole thing morphed into 'bringing democracy to the people'. What right NATO thinks it has to that I am not sure but it has led to the Taliban being taken out of the process and driven into alliance with the terrorists. At various points, it has been identified as being about the drugs trade - well you could simply buy the crop if you don't want it falling into the dealers' hands - and, in some cynical minds, about oil and pipelines. We have heard all this before in Iraq. The only thing that is missing is the excuse of 'ridding the world of an evil dictator'.
Basically, no one knows what it is all about any more. Al Quaida is probably now commanded and controlled from Pakistan, Osama could be anywhere from the South Caucuses to the North West frontier for all we know. He will by now have been marginalised in his own organisation and is probably of no operational significance. Getting Bin Laden now is all about appearances - the perception of justice being done. In the unlikely event they succeed, it will change nothing on the ground. So we have another war in which the original objectives have become blurred, that 'must', in the view of the alliance, be won but probably cannot be and looks set to drag on for possibly decades. In the immortal words of Oliver Hardy, "There's another fine mess you got me into".
Complain about this comment
pennyyak,
you "don't know". And "coffins come home".
So coffins are for something un-definable, that compensates you for them.
Somehing that only Americans can do, and this is your only consolatiobn.
Something very fine, that only Americans can see in it, and understand, and manage.
Because "even if all stop - we will continue alone".
You don't know what it is, only vaguely feel it must exist - otherwise - what for, all the coffins?
Well, this is you consolation then. That fine unexplainable matter.
In case it exists.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Nato's secretary general has just told me that he is "very worried " that a plan for new laws restricting women's rights in Afghanistan may make it more difficult to persuade European countries to contribute new troops. The Secretary General is totally correct in his assessment regarding the passing of the Afghan law restricting women's rights will make it difficult to get more European troops to the theater...
~Dennis Junior
Complain about this comment
Mark:
But is Nato fighting for "universal human rights"? Didn't it go to war in response to 9/11 - the first time article five of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked - the clause that says "attack one of us and we'll all attack you"?
To the questions:
1) Yes....
2)Yes, I have read the NATO treaty that Article 5....
-Dennis Junior
Complain about this comment
What are we fighting for, you ask Mr Mardell? Human rights? If so, then why don't we march into Saudi Arabia? Women have no rights there either, among several other human rights abuses. Economy aside, Saudi Arabia is no different than Afghanistan.
Although I'm too young to remember the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, my parents remember the American media was adamantly criticizing the Soviets and the Afghan communist party for "forcing the Afghans to change their culture" by making women remove their burkhas. Funny how things change.
@MarcusAurelius:
Washington had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's only what Reaganites and new-libs want you to think. It's all a myth that's intended for domestic consumption, and in fact, this is even touched on in a *BBC* documentary, The Power of Nightmares.
Again, remember the VERY limited information from the US media that you rely on for your arguments.
Anyone who's competent at the CIA knows that the dissolution of the USSR was caused by a complex set of internal factors, ranging from economic stagnation that long predated Reagan's arms race, to political ineptness and distrust from the public, to separatist movements in the constituent republics. The dissolution was going to happen sooner or later, and Gorbachev's political reforms which unleashed an era transparency and open criticism, provided the stage for this.
On an interesting note, while the neo-libs now maintain that it was Reagan's arms race that took down the USSR (because it forced the USSR to keep up), they were arguing back in the 1970s that the USSR was secretly working on a wide range of military weapons and spy technology in defiance of arms reduction treaties. The neo-libs are hardly known for being consistent. And if they're not consistent, they're probably lying.
Complain about this comment
pie-in-the-skye
Gorbachev tried desperately to save Communism. The US was rendering it bankrupt as it was. There was hardly any food on the shelves of the state run stores. An orange or a banana was a big deal. Singapore produced about as many consumer goods as the entire USSR did. It made nothing anyone would want to buy in preference to something made elsewhere if they had a choice. The population lived on vodka, it was the only thing that made life bearable. And then Reagan spent a couple of trillion dollars on everything from an antiballistic missile system to Pershing II missiles in Geremany five minutes from Moscow, to a six hundred ship navy including Ohio Class nuclear submarines, to the B2 stealth bomber, cruise missiles, and the MX missile. Russians generals demanded that they receive a comparable upgrade to their military hardware recalling how weak they were during the Cuban missile crisis. The US even offered to give antiballistic missile technology to the USSR knowing full well they couldn't afford to build it. They went bankrupt pure and simple. That is why they died. What had been a political/military war was turned into a war of economics, one the USSR was hopelessly outclassed in. Europeans were furious. There were protests against the Pershings all over Europe. Gorbachev's efforts at the Dubcek "Socialism with a kinder gentler face" alternative failed. He tried to sober up the nation by raising taxes on vodka. Bad move, the Soviets only realized just how bleak life was for them. Meanwhile the hard liners revolted against Gorbachev's attempte reforms. As things got worse they staged a coup. That was the end. But the real end of the USSR IMO was locked in by Chernobyl. The lunacy of the philosophy that Communism could do no wrong culminated in a day when half the country came within a hairs breath of dying. There will never be a day in the forseeable future even a thousand years from now when the scar of Chernobyl will not stand as a reminder, the tombstone of Communism in the world. There is no conceivable technology that can make it go away. And only utter stupidity like that of Chavez and the ignorance of his peasant population can bring it back.
Complain about this comment
MA, more or less allright, but with Chernobyl you seem to have it personal. Didn't it blast as much as it could? What else possibly could go wrong with it more "to put half of the country at a hair's width of death". ? I think we inhaled the radioactive trace afterwards as much as we could, and all who possibly ever can, given the worst possible wind direction on the day. That blew North, which happens with Ukraine twice a year. And then the cloud was caught by the Eastern wind - mind it - in the territory that is classified "the great Western transfer corridor" - means 70% of the time it ought to have Western winds prevailing.
So in terms of the cloud travel you can't plan for worse.
And then in the following years we ate up all things that grew in the areas of the trace from our un-controlled food markets.
"half a country" "at a straw from death" - a bit overinflated imo.
But of course a disaster no doubt. Only for us it didn't stand out in the row of the following disasters, other things out-shaded even the Chernobyl.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice, the impact of Chernobyl has been grossly underestimated IMO. The first stupid blunder was the assertion by Russians that radioactive contamination from nuclear reactors was a capitalist problem which was why they didn't go to the trouble and expense of building a containment buildings. Have you ever seen a photo of one? You've never seen so much concrete and reinforcing steel bars in such a space in your life. Then there was the accident itself, the result of an unauthorized experiment to get more power out of the reactor. I guess some misguided fool thought this would be seen as a glorious victory for the revolution. In the aftermath, as with the Kursk, the people in charge were not only clueless but denied themselves access to the best advice and help available. They reportedly called operators of a West German nuclear power plant for advice on how to slow the core down. No protective clothing, the workers in effect wore paper suits throwing all kinds of stuff at it. The few minutes exposure to the core was all it took, it was a death sentence for all of them. They had no lead lined suits. Meanwhile, unknown to people in the area, they were not only not evacuated, they weren't even told to go indoors to minimize exposure. Had the meltdown gotten even further out of hand, the radiation would have spread much farther and wider. On a PBS episode of Nova, a science program, it was explained that it took a year and a half to just find what became of the core as it had melted through the ground. Russians deperately dug below it and put tons of concrete underneath it while they sealed the top in a makeshift "sarcophagus" that has been collapsing. The core will of course burn through the concrete under it eventually. I think it has a half life of 92,000 years. What will happen when it reaches ground water is that it will probably vent radioactive steam into the atmosphere...forever.
Halfway around the world, US intelligence was watching this from spy satellite photos relayed back to the White House. For about a week or two, the government in Washington DC half a world away knew more about what was going on in that building than the leaders in the Kremlin a bare thousand miles away. My question about this was relayed to Gorbachev on BBC's interview with him in 2002 and he got very angry about my suggestion that he didn't know what was going on in the early days after the accident. But obvious lies denying it by the Kremlin were belied by the radiation falling all over northern Europe from it. Within a month, radioactive fallout with the Chernobyl reactor's signiture on it was detected on the lawn at Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murry Hill NJ. Gorbachev's top scientists must have told him the USSR had averted a far worse disaster by only a hair's breadth. The impact at the highest level must have been sobering.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius,
I have never before read such a distorted interpretation of recent European and Russian histories. You're digging up a bunch of *unrelated events* in an unconvincing attempt to support your usual "America-saves-an-ungrateful-world" narrative. And much of your argument [both in this and in other threads] revolves around false premises, such as the notion that the communist system enjoyed wide popularity both inside and outside the communist bloc. I suppose that's why communism withered away when Eastern Europe democratized in the late 1980s and why communist parties in Western Europe never gained a large share of parliamentary votes, despite being allowed to run freely in elections, unlike in the USA. When given the choice, people in both Eastern and Western Europe did NOT elect for communism in the post-WWII era, so one of your major talking points is flatly incorrect.
The long lines at Soviet grocery stores have been attributed by most analysts and historians at the inefficiencies of the Soviet system both in producing and distributing consumer goods, but we can also say that the USSR had long had to deal with shortages in certain basic food staples -notably wheat- because Russian and Ukrainian agriculture suffered a blow during the forced collectivizations of the Stalin era, and have yet to fully recover since. Again, this notion that Washington played an instrumental role in dissolving the USSR, is just a MYTH that serves a political purpose in America's domestic politics. As early of the 1970s, liberal Soviet economists had warned that the Soviet economy was headed for serious trouble unless there was some form of free market reform, even if minimal, but they were silenced by the old-generation old guard which stayed in power until 1985. The CIA was well aware in the 1970s that the Soviet economy was in trouble, and even the Chinese Communist Party abandoned strict communist ideology in the late 1970s after the death of Chairman Mao. The Soviet economy was headed for trouble due to internal reasons, and the Gorbachev era intended on reforming and saving the system, albeit belatedly. The arms race and the war in Afghanistan may have also dented an already ailing economy, but this is not the reason that USSR collapsed. And indeed, in American public discourse, there is a gross failure to differentiate between Soviet economic stagnation, and the dissolution of the Soviet super-state itself. The USSR could have, in theory, adopted even wide-ranging free-market reforms as well as political reforms (the USSR held its first multiparty elections in 1989, effectively becoming a democracy during its final two years of existence 1989-1991) and still remained a single state. But the nail in the coffin were the separatist movements in almost all of the constituent republics -including Russia itself- which long predate Gorbachev's era. We're talking about a collection of nation-states that had little in common, culturally, from Latvia to Uzbekistan; it was doomed to dissolve sooner or later, just as the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, British, and French Empires had also done within the same century.
You're right that Gorbachev wanted to save both the USSR and communism, but he also believed in democratic reforms, open criticism, and transparency...things which he sincerely believed would save the Union and improve communism. But when the Union's dissolution appeared inevitable, he stuck to his principles, and let the chips fall where they may.
Complain about this comment
pie in the skye, the facts are clear. The USSR went bankrupt in the arms race. It would not have, had the US not escalated it, at least not for decades to come. It was an escalation most Western Europeans opposed vehemently. Despite the deprivation, those who lived in the former Soviet world miss the cradle to grave benefits living in a prison confers. You don't have to starve on the streets of America if you don't want to, you'll always have a warm bed every night and three meals a day if you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison. Hard as it seems for normal people to believe, some prefer it. Soviets had those benefits being prisoners in a slave state.
The USSR was always impovrished. It was hardly much worse off under Breshnev than it was under Stalin, in fact better off on the whole. There was no mass starvation and people had food and clothes even if they were not for the most part up to average Western standards. They also had free medical care, education, and jobs. It was outside pressure that diverted resources that would have pacified the population with marginally better living standards to military weapons production. The USSR became one giant military machine tryng to keep up with the west. Reportedly over one million people were engaged in sifting through Western documents to find militarily useful secrets they could use. At the local level, the party apparatus was just as ruthless as it had always been. It was when the party could no longer get away with the lie that the USSR was the best of all possible worlds that it fell apart. North Korea tries to tell its people the same lie today. When the whole society is in revolt, there is nothing the government can do. How fortunate for the European dictatorship governments like the UK's that their societies haven't completely revolted...yet.
Complain about this comment
#64 - skye_eg
I agree with almost everything you say but I would add one thought. I feel that, while Gorbachev would have liked the party machine to have survived, he would have accepted that it would have been part of a multi party system. I believe he was more interested in it as a mechanism of administration than as a political or philosophical movement. I do agree that he was more reluctant to accept the end of Greater Russia that, say, Yeltsin but by then the writing was on the wall.
Complain about this comment
Marcus.
You are contradicting yourself again. You have generally argued that all Europeans are revolting all of the time.
Complain about this comment
good point threnodious, I do find them "revolting" all of the time...except when they are asleep. Then they are merely disgusting :-)
Complain about this comment
The outgoing secretary general talks nonsense. The boys and girls of the Nato forces go to Afghanistan because they are ordered to do so and not for their desire to fight for any values nor to protect the opium for the narcotic trade with the US ( I note the hurry with which the Bush administration attended to substituting opium with other crops and wait with interest what the Obama administration will do with it). Nato went to Afghanistan because the Bush USA administration decided to declare war on al-Qaeda, whom they first supported against Russia,
and requested Nato therefore to join. Next was last year, the USA to invite Georgia in the Caucasus to join the Nato. Some EU members vehememtly shook their head negatively. Who in Europe is seriously thinking of declaring war against Russia for Georgia or if they decide to take the Baltics back ?
Listening to this has-been secretary is really bad. He is overdue for pension and oblivion. Not one boy or girl from the Nato would agree with him, that's for sure.
Complain about this comment
Glad to hear there are reasonable heads in NATO; the globe is small, paths cross, we ought to be able to mind some traffic rules giving way to each other to pass. As min. when along narrow winding roads with mountain wall one side, and abyss on the other.
As our (famous for coinng catchy phrases) ambassador to Ukraine, Chernomyrdin, said once :
"You can't always, so perpendicular! with NATO"
:o)
So there is a preliminary understanding, of possible understanding, on this side as well.
Besides, as human brain, unless one is Garry Kasparov or the Big Blue chess computer :o) absolutely seemingly can not forecast the consequances of deeds, it often turns out that what seems to you at the moment Russia/NATO/anyone is doing - is bad for you - and then some time later it turns out, it was in fact - good for you.
Only you didn't know that back then.
Consequently, for example, we have learned this. Don't know about NATO :o)
Normally, with US in Afghanistan, in good old times, Russia would be screaming high and all over. "Them! Accused us before! Now do the same!"etc. And now we are wiser and keep quiet. It's only on BBC I learn of British, America and other countries' loss in Afghanistan. Russian media mentions to say nothing - "pedals" it nil.
The understanding that eventually downed upon us is - however unfair (if to compare with Soviet action same place before, that "they" accused us, however awkwardly, "they" are messing around there - it still gives a threat and sends a signal to radical islam in nearby countries, or possible proponents of radical islam - "the West can come and harm you". Keeps (morally) radical islamisation in check.
So these days, when Russia gets unhappy with something new NATO did in Afghanistan, there are no direct accusations save God, or any crossing i-s and t-s. No way. Of yet another village bombing out you find in distant distant sources. The mainstrean media channel, how to say, clearly limits own desire to say something! :o)
Which can be easily spotted. That something happened but they don't want to go into details. In this manner the news block at :00 zro zero, every hour, will start with a silent picture: (now, get ready :o)
"Un-weather in the United States.
No comment."
(that's upper part of the screen)
And below - some views of a flood in the US, or tornado, or some other troubles.
LOL.
Then you know - US "did something, again!"
:o)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS