Short Post Afghanistan

This post is more about Afghanistan than anything else, it's not a mini country profile like the one I did on India, but more of my thoughts on the history of Afghanistan.*

Currently the U.S. still deploys forces to Afghanistan to support ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force).  President Obama says we are drawing down in 2014, the Secretaries of Defense and Chief of Staff confirm the timeline barring national emergencies and unforeseen contingency operations of course.  The news is ripe with stories of the dependence our national security has on covert Navy Seal and CIA operations.  But lets look at Afghanistan a little more closely, in particular starting at the threadbare story of the burning of the Koran (Quran).  Though many stories about the resulting riots have ensued, it is interesting to me that such a strong response is rattling through the country.  These were not Qurans confiscated from ordinary citizens but from detainees, and they were being disposed of it seems (since the investigation is in progress, these are just my speculations as a citizen spectator of the news stories).  It doesn't seem like the holy books were being desecrated actively by misguided or misled Soldiers.  So, it seems to me to be wise to hold back on all the media judgment.

Delving into the country's history, the fiercest resistance has been intertwined with religious zealotry that many Muslims agree is a warped and twisted representation of Islam.  Even with the sensitivity military forces (e.g. ISAF) must have for the culture of a country that is the target for security and infrastructure development, it seems like making mountains out of molehills to trigger violent uprisings and revolts over the accidental improper disposal of the holy texts.  If other big cases of Quran burning are researched just quickly on Google or Wikipedia, it is clear that in those instances the Quran was being purposely defamed and disrespected.  So it confuses me why this bitter outcry?  Is it being fostered by the self-declared guerrilla fighters?  Is it an overreaction due to misrepresentation of the situation?  Research into the strict religious law imposed by the Taliban and the relationship between the leader of the Taliban - Mullah Mohammed Omar - and Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda forces, shows the shocking and dehumanizing application of religious texts to an already war torn population.  Of particular pertinence to me is the treatment of women under this strict law:  which was absolutely dehumanizing.  It is not unheard of for cultures to subjugate women as second-class citizens, but it was chilling to see how what was at first a resistance to war-lord-ism became a militarily backed movement to apply a specific set of laws to many different peoples.

Since I first read about the leader who was directly opposed to Mullah Omar, Ahmad Shah Massoud has stood out to me as an extraordinary figure and a true loss to military and political operations in the country of Afghanistan.  Also known as the Lion of Panjshir, he was considered by some to be a war lord, but he fought the Taliban and effectively countered them time and time again in the northern region of Afghanistan.  This sort of internal conflict shows me there is something broken within Afghanistan.  I don't think it is a failed country, but maybe it is failed politics.  It is a country whose citizens question the elections, but that is not limited to Afghanistan.  The same goes for Russia, and it wasn't too long ago that American citizens were demanding recounts of votes in Florida.  The difference is of course in the level of activity of the resistance.  Activist groups in the United States raise money and hold up wildly offensive pickets.  Russian protesters mob streets and bridges showing force in numbers of the people who want to see change.  Afghanistan is a mine-filled, AK-47 plentiful, and dangerous land with snipers and small arms fire a risk in many places.

So, what am I saying?  Not much at the moment, just sharing the thoughts that have been brewing in my mind in light of recent news and forgotten history.  What will history think of this in ten years time?  What will we think in just five years?

*I'm still writing for me at the moment, so this isn't well-targeted writing.  I am hoping that my deployment will get me what I need to really put the right edge of genuine experience into my writing and provide direction for the motivation and passion whirring away madly in my heart and mind:  it's energy that already goes into outlets.  I'm hoping to channel it more productively in the future, though.  Comments greatly appreciated!

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Reaction

It is post-Christmas and I've been feeling anxious lately. Though I was able to accomplish a lot yesterday, I still ended up getting into a fight (verbal) at the end of the night, just thankfully not in public. I felt like the conversation was going well and I was holding my own without being too prickly of a person, but I wasn't too sure since I had gotten three shots to update my immunizations records and one was a polio adult booster - the number one side effect is, naturally, irritability. So I was double checking my personal assessment of the situation with a friend and a somewhat unrelated fight broke out over other topics. I guess the movie we saw had me a little bit sensitive and reactive: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. And I know there is a book, and I really ought to read it, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Anyway, overheard someone say of Lisbeth's rape scene that she would break the bed rather than endure the rape. Now I know it's nice to imagine that, but it just doesn't appeal to me as an observational comment.  When I looked at my reaction to the comment, I was perplexed and had to try to think why it bothered me.  After some thought, I guess it was the subtle way she put herself above the character's reaction. Rather than say, "I'm sure she wished she could have broken the bed rather than been raped, that scene was so strong and uncomfortable." the comment was rather one that she would have done the impossible to avoid the rape.

But comments and why those comments stood out in my mind aside, the scene makes me think of how living unconventionally makes you vulnerable to being taken advantage of in ways that aren't immediately apparent. Maybe being conventional and sweet and submissive and effeminate without apparent strength puts you at the mercy of strong men, but you could live your whole life in this fashion and be "alright." You could believe that if everyone followed the rules that we'd all be okay and taken care of.  Yet if you're wild and need independence for whatever reason - whether past trauma or betrayal - it can be held against you.  You don't conform to society and whether you are a man or woman, you suffer for it.  Yet the wayfaring woman has so much more to fear than the man.

The closing scene of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo also hit me hard.  It's the sort of scene that makes me sad because when someone who finds it difficult to become romantically involved finds someone they care about, it is painful to find out that the other doesn't feel the same way - or at least believing this.  That you were a phase in their life, and that they are going back to what is familiar and easier.  Finding someone who makes you feel even dryly witty and attractive, only to find out you barely made an impression is one of the biggest let downs you can feel in your life.

I know I am projecting, because obviously there is a book and I should probably read that for more insight into Lisbeth's point of view.  But on the movie, if you - man or woman - are strong enough like the protagonist to be "alright" and take care of yourself, it is still one of life's tragedies to see a hardened person begin to soften only to get hurt and feel as though the offending person has proven their lowest estimations of humanity are right from time to time.  It's enough to stay cynical.  Strong movie.  Very thought provoking, I have got to read the books now...

Very Important yet Leaves me Uncertain

First of all... I do not agree with a lot in this blog.  I definitely think it is valuably thought-provoking.  I am sorry I have not posted this response sooner.  Besides digesting all this information, I do also after all have a graduation to think about.  This is the article: 

The Urgent Importance of Mutual Respect

I would like to point out a couple criticisms before I move on to my analysis of what is important from this article.  First of all, the news references are nearly all from Fox news, which is well-known for a conservative bias and I can see how watching them would give any liberal plenty of ammunition.  The second criticism is the comparison of war to sports, as though a sport as a metaphor for war was unique to America.  I'm sure Mr. Ethan Casey would agree that the world's most popular sport of football (or soccer as we say in America) has just as much if not more exuberant cheering and uber-patriotism than a Super Bowl game.  One of my acquaintances from Brazil compared Americans having taken out Osama bin Laden as Brazilians when they win the World Cup.  Another example is the way the world uses important sports as symbolism for a lot of things:  the location of the Olympic Games for example, or the World Cup to go back to that example. Anyway, that's not to say that Mr. Ethan Casey's point about patriotism and nationalism doesn't stand, but I think in haste and perhaps just personal taste he chose to knock down American football fandom, which seems a little unfair in context with what the story appears to be saying, in my opinion at any rate.  However I think his personal taste comes out when he calls the country song God Bless the USA ugly.  I think that many Americans would probably find a lot of Pakistani music annoying and repetitive, but it's really not the point, is it?

Moving on, I know that oftentimes it seems like blogs are a competition to walk the middle ground.  There are many bloggers fighting to write scathing articles on any display of emotion on any side.  Or else it's just 'hipsters' trying to make everything seem passé.  I am just trying to write a blog to evaluate all the information coming at simple me from 360 degrees.

I completely disagree that expressing happiness at the death of Osama bin Laden is the sign of future fascism.  I don't think that it should sadden or alarm anyone that Americans were happy, hell, we were relieved!  Imagine how frustrating and to add, embarrassing, it was to invade Iraq and not find the weapons of mass destruction we foretold.  We did find incredible caches, but unfortunately not quite what the media had predicted, so it looked like and felt like failure.  We were also frustrated when our President then said we would get Osama bin Laden and many a year a news station would point out that Osama was still out there, making the occasional taunting or encouraging video to his followers.  These conflicts have been a bit of a bungled mess, and I don't think it's off the mark at all to say they were poorly-executed initially.  We went in guns blazing expecting conventional warfare, however this is a new era of conflict, and conventional war is more and more difficult to achieve.  Think of how prolonged fighting has gone on in spite of how quickly peace treaties were drawn up after invading both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So taking out a man who was absolutely anti-America even when Arab nations wanted American help to fight the Soviet Union, is a good thing.  To say we should have been more careful is hardly justifiable given that we took him out with a precision team as opposed to a drone bomb.  I don't think America would have taken him out with a bomb had it been possible at this point because it is so valuable to secure complete confirmation that he is dead.  Osama bin Laden was the founder of al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the 9-11 attacks.  The problem is there is no doubt that those were attacks on American soil.  Huge attacks if you think about it.  So the correct course of action according to all existing information was war.  Think how quickly the world reacted to that.  But what could we go to war against?  Ever since we pursued military action in response to the 9-11 attacks, the term was popularized - and has remained the most popular term in spite of the attempt to rename it as Overseas Contingency Operations - as the Global War on Terror.  I have been skeptical and annoyed at this reference since its conception.  I can only now explain why.

Ever since the codification of the customary laws of armed conflict, we have obeyed some sort of rules of war.  Even when war became the huge all-consuming destructive force that mankind had never seen before in World War I, it was still re-confined, left and right limits more and more succinctly defined, by the humanitarian and pragmatic international legal experts and national leaders of that era and beyond.  From a humanitarian perspective you want to protect people whose fault it isn't that war exists and who are vulnerable to the effects of war.  From a pragmatic perspective, if everyone were to use their worst weapons today, the world would be a toxic, unlivable wasteland.

The current laws of war apply to wars with ends, and wars between "High Contracting Parties".  The very problem with the Global War on Terror is who is the enemy?  How long, where, and to what extent, should Coalition Forces be allowed to use military force?  And if it's a global police action, is it really war?  Peace-enforcement operations of the last decade have shown that casualties are a risk in unstable parts of the world regardless what name you give the operations.  But what rules should apply?  Should we be allowed to target anyone part of the group we are hunting?  Can we afford to go wherever these non-state actors appear?  Shouldn't that be part of normal state actions anyway?  Securing the nation, shouldn't that be standard protocol, not a state of war?

So, all these points are interesting and this article made me think of that.  I still don't agree with this article.  I don't think the American reaction to this specific news is bad, but I think that overall after a decade the American people would want a better definition of our military goals, and what exactly we are trying to do at this point.  If we are nation building, to what extent are we obligated to nation build?  And if we are trying to extricate ourselves from that responsibility shouldn't we acknowledge the rule of law that governs military occupation and state sovereignty?  If it isn't a responsibility whatsoever, than how can we politically bring this conflict to an end without offending our allies?  There needs to be an end-state that doesn't appear to favor only the United States.  The world is in a precarious place right now, and today is a time like any other to review our actions for the last twenty or thirty years and reevaluate how international interactions should be governed.