It's been ten years, almost to the day, since I returned from Afghanistan with the "Report" Jacques Chirac, Lionel Jospin and Hubert Védrine had commissioned, in which I described the possible contribution of France to the political, civic, cultural and military reconstruction of this country ruined by decades of dictatorship, war, and massacres.
Obviously, I shall not go into the details here of the recommendations I made then.
Nor shall I dwell on the long series of errors committed by an international community that never should have blindly depended upon the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai; nor negotiated with the fascist Taliban it had come to combat and, in principle, exclude from power; nor, finally -- undoubtedly the most blatant error -- announced so soon, with great fanfare, the date when it would withdraw its troops, in 2014.
Today, what is most important is the result.
And it must be said, the result is increasingly catastrophic.
The business of the Korans that were burnt in the rubbish collection site of Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul.
The criminal spree of this American soldier who cold-bloodedly murdered sixteen people, including nine children, in three villages of the Panjwai district, near Kandahar.
This 'Kurtz syndrome' that seems to threaten a however clearly small number of soldiers, driven, like Conrad's hero in Heart of Darkness, to the end of their tether by this war without a front or a visible enemy, whose stakes are elusive, and in which yesterday's friend can, without warning, become today's or tomorrow's enemy.
And, at the end of the day, the terrible paradox of an army of liberation, increasingly hated by the very people it wished to liberate.
Or, worse still: this growing fringe of the population who -- occupation for occupation -- may well end up preferring the "home made" occupation of the Taliban.
And, instead of a pacified country on the path to democracy we dreamed of leaving to the Afghans, a tragic situation, literally and figuratively, where all solutions -- as in Hegel's definition of the Tragic in his meditation on Antigone -- prove equally disastrous.
Leave there, immediately, even before the end of 2014, the projected date? An admission of failure and impotence. Ten years of sacrifice, ending in a farce. And the quasi-certainty of seeing Mullah Omar's men return as soon as we leave.
Stay? Prolong our presence beyond the deadline of 2014? Difficult, considering the human cost in the ranks of the Coalition of a war that has, after all, claimed the lives of over a thousand Americans, 404 Englishmen, 52 Germans, 36 Italians and 29 Frenchmen. Even impossible when it is the very people involved who don't want us there anymore and see us, more and more often, as the Iraqis and the South Vietnamese before them finally perceived the American troops who had initially come with intentions that were not always bad.
Go and stay? Withdraw combat troops but leave the military bases and instructors ? This is what was planned. But even this minimal presence could be reconsidered if the hatred of America, the auto-demonization of the Coalition, product of its own abuses, should continue to expand. (Sometimes I wonder if America and its wars of liberation, all of which, with the exception of the war against Naziism, have turned out so badly, might exist under a blighted star.)
And then?
Then, the nature of a tragic situation is such that there is, I repeat, no way out -- or in any case, no miracle solution.
But at least one can dream of one or two ideas.
Beginning with this one, which I have defended for years.
Admit that Afghanistan cannot be reduced, for all that, to a desperate confrontation between the Taliban killers and the corrupt members of Karzai's regime.
Learn to count to three, in other words, to this third force which is the democratic opposition to both of them, incarnate in the man -- Abdullah Abdullah, Commandant Massoud's former lieutenant -- who, during the blatantly fraudulent elections of 2009, managed nonetheless to garner over 30% of the ballots cast.
Remember, in other terms, that if the Tragic is one of History's laws, it does not necessarily always constitute the last word -- and that it happens that courage, just courage which is imagination by another name, succeeds in loosening the vice.
In Kabul, between the failed regimes we continue to support, through obstination and laziness, and the Taliban assassins we hire, through sheer stupidity, to make the beds, there are, then, the heirs of Massoud.
And perhaps before we pull up the ladder, it would be advisable to try to turn to them, in an ultimate attempt, a last-chance operation.
Abdullah Abdullah...
Remember this name.
Recall it, if you have forgotten it.
For Afghanistan and its friends, it is perhaps the very last card left to play.
Daniel N. Nelson: Time to Get the F*#@ Out
Jon Soltz: Time to End Counter-Insurgency In Afghanistan
I have to tell you deep down, that the Afghan people want the United States out and their self-determination respected. But yet, I can hear every word in your article with your unique French accent choosing a leader that you think perfectly fits the need for us Afghans.
Here is my take on this; first and foremost, choosing a leader for Afghanistan does not fall under the one size fits all western mold or Jeffersonian democracy that so far has miserably failed.
In fact, there are two prerequisites for Afghan leadership in order to be accepted by the majority to rule, and that has not evolved out or changed from the 12 century concept so far, which will never so for another 2 centuries or plus or few generational changes at least.
ONE: A hopeful leader must cross ethnic lines and be accepted.
TWO: A hopeful leader must and should “possess known bloodline” for people to identify and give their allegiance.
Sorry, but this is how the system works in current Afghan politics, indeed a far different one than how you chose Mr. Sarkozy.
Further, and in nutshell, if the problems in the grassroots level are not solved in Afghanistan, then even prophet Mohammad (PBUH) will not be able to lead Afghanistan.
My recent article--linked below--reflects the core of the problem. Hope it is of interest.
http://newworldstrategiescoalition.org/uploads/DePashtunization-Final-V1.0_1_.pdf
Futhermore, he represents the faction within Afghanistan which wants to have decentralization (and thereafter partition) of the country in order to become a client state of the petroleum industry (think Dana Rohrabacher).
Abdullah (or any other member of the northern alliance) is not a nationalistic Afghan, and if he came to power Afghanistan would descend immediately into the type of civil war they witnessed in the 1990's, but at least we could pull out and say we tried... right?
the humanist smoke being blown by policy makers and politicos whoses dedication to the lie
is only matched by their greed and skills in projecting images that they share some degree of
humanity with those of us who cannot even conceive of their dark agendas, much less carry them out on the stage of a baffled world population. Let's give NATO the next Nobel Peace Prize!
Like you, he always has brilliant ideas, devoid of self interest.
I will go to bed releived, knowing that you are commited to saving Afghanistan, you, faux jeton.
Hasan Ansari
When Russians came to help the socialist President in 1980, the situation of women greatly improved, because Russian liberated women, and girls went to school to became nurses, doctors and teachers. When US "helped" the Charlie Wilson war against Russians, and Taliban came to power, they established medieval evil sharia, where women were imprisoned into homes and the entire society became an economic basket case. Afghanistan had the highest number of suicides among women. Taliban enabled terrorists to establish training camps, in addition to destruction of all non-Islamic art (example two giant Buddhas that were dynamited and shattered). Islamic teachings of pedophilia, polygamy, misogyny, and murder for Allah Akbar had become the rule in this dysfunctional country, making it even more dysfunctional.
American occupation had helped women of Afghanistan to get some protection but if Taliban comes back all will be lost. US owes it to Afghan women to stay and eradicate the supremacist ideology of Taliban, which led to 9/11. Abdulla abdullah may not live long enough, since his Muslim friends from Taliban may do away with him as Mohamed did with his enemies.
2. Don't you think the "US owes it to" the Saudi women more than the Afghan women if it's responsible for bringing equality to the women of the world, considering that we pumped the Saudi oil on bargain prices for decades?
3. The Taliban are mostly composed of the Pashtun people. And these are a powerful group of people numbering close to 40 millions, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. You cannot eradicate their religious beliefs through military occupation and threat. Such strategy worked nowhere. The Talibans have to change themselves in time -- particulary through peaceful persuasions emanating from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Once again, the NeoConservative notion that nations can be bombed into becoming peace-loving democracies with 21st-century notions concerning women, freedom, and markets proves utterly delusional.
When will they ever learn?
If Abullah Abdullah didn't manage to garner power when the Pashtun people were marginalised because of the US occupation of Afghaistan what chances would he have after they leave? It appears Bernard Henri Levi's ONLY interest is to keep the NATO forces in Afghanistan as long as possible inorder to encircle Iran, without any consideration for the Afghan people.
Wouldn't it be nice if every article arguing in favor of a particular policy would come with a brief disclaimer (or warning label) in which the author informs the reader as to his real interests in the matter?
By the way, the word "assumption" is yours and not mine. I said "it appears".