[U184]

MB. could you please, restate that a bit more plainly?

Also

I posted that information on the Ballistic Defense. Look for (PAA) Phased Adaptive Approach Misslie-3
I think I can get a detailed overview, maybe even a schematic breakdown and test review data.

[MB.]

Afghanistan is a great nation with an unambiguous national history. Who are we to invade their nation and impose our values? As disgusting as the Taliban may be, how is American imperialism any better?

[U184]

I understand your concern, I am not real clear on how your question on, Afghanistan and American imperialism, came out of the current topic though. Thus, I am finding it hard to post a suitable response.

[MB.]

Without armies of soldiers the American empire is only a figment of the imagination. The propaganda and recruitment videos posted in this thread are fundamentally about enticing individuals to acquiesce to state militarism. For the explicit purpose of imperialism.

[Cartertonian]

Ironically enough, I posed MB's question to a group of military students only yesterday. Not verbatim, obviously, but the central thrust of the question was the same.

Interestingly, the ensuing debate was inconclusive and none of them passionately defended our right to foist our Western liberal values on Afghanistan. Mind you, neither did any of them think it was reasonable to knowingly allow horrific human rights abuses to persist unchecked.

Neither I nor MB moderate this sub-forum, but perhaps this thread might be better split, taking this deviation into IRDC?

[Maxim Litvinov]

You seem to want to present it as intervention in human rights hotspots, Cartertonian. We both know that's not the case. If our armies were about humanitarian interventions, their baggage tags would read very differently.

[Cartertonian]

I'm only reporting back what the motivation of a group of military students - most of whom have deployed to 'the 'Stan' - was. What the motivation of our political masters might be will always be open to deep suspicion and cynicism by external observers.

As far as we coal-face workers are concerned, all we are trying to do is create a security environment that can promote moves toward the development of a peaceful and benevolent society.

Alternatively, if you think we should leave the Afghans to degenerate back into misogynist, brutal Medieval theocrats, then say so.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Alternatively, if you think we should leave the Afghans to degenerate back into misogynist, brutal Medieval theocrats, then say so.

I think you're mistaking me for the US Army in the 1980s.

As far as we coal-face workers are concerned, all we are trying to do is create a security environment that can promote moves toward the development of a peaceful and benevolent society.

Sorry - I had thought you were saying that individuals in the military seriously think about what they are doing. But no, you were basically agreeing with MB - showing that its students accept the propaganda and see their expeditions as some sort of humanitarian gestures with a bit of invasion and slaughter en passant.

[Cartertonian]

No, you're right...to a certain extent. My role is to educate and develop military medical personnel as part of a Bachelor's degree pathway. Many of them haven't thus far been encouraged to think too hard about these sorts of issues until now, so in essence, yes...most (junior) military personnel are neither encouraged nor personally motivated to contemplate their actions or attempt to contextualise them in the bigger picture.

Nevertheless - cynicism notwithstanding - having been out on the ground and seen the legacy of the Taliban's years of abuse, and the grinding poverty and the social dysfunction, those of us who have been there are affirmed in our belief that our main effort is to bring stability and security, and to rebuild infrastructure and to give the Afghan people half a chance of a reasonable life. A chance they wouldn't have had if we had left then to fester under the Taliban.

You may be right, Maxim, that the motivation of our overlords is far more malign and Machiavellian. The snag is, neither you nor I can know for certain. You strongly suspect ill intent, based on whatever evidence you credit with some degree of veracity, whereas the information I have from inside the machine leads me to sincerely believe that our intentions are far more honourable than external critics - liberated by their externality as they are to think and say whatever they like without substantiation - give us credit for.

[MB.]

Cartertonian,

If the Coalition operation in Afghanistan were not crassly imperial in nature, then jurisdiction would have LONG AGO been handed over to a significant and serious (and jesus christ, I mean serious) peace keeping operation contingent.

My role is to educate and develop military medical personnel as part of a Bachelor's degree pathway. Many of them haven't thus far been encouraged to think too hard about these sorts of issues until now, so in essence, yes...most (junior) military personnel are neither encouraged nor personally motivated to contemplate their actions or attempt to contextualise them in the bigger picture.

Exactly, comrade, you have your finger on the pedagogical trigger. Either you will explain to these initiates the significance of revolutionary ideology and the importance of undermining the imperial institution - or you will endorse it.

Nevertheless - cynicism notwithstanding - having been out on the ground and seen the legacy of the Taliban's years of abuse, and the grinding poverty and the social dysfunction, those of us who have been there are affirmed in our belief that our main effort is to bring stability and security, and to rebuild infrastructure and to give the Afghan people half a chance of a reasonable life. A chance they wouldn't have had if we had left then to fester under the Taliban.

If this were the legitimate political and ethical objective of the coalition backed by international & UN mandate in a peace-keeping framework, I could endorse this. But since it's just imperialism...

[Cartertonian]

Exactly, comrade, you have your finger on the pedagogical trigger. Either you will explain to these initiates the significance of revolutionary ideology and the importance of undermining the imperial institution - or you will endorse it.

Is that how 'Political Science' is taught?



No. My role is not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think. I deconstruct their preconceptions and open up options to them. I invite them to think about whether what we do as an organisation is - as the MoD strapline says - 'A Force For Good', or just 'crass imperialism', as you seem to think.

Students are not 'initiates' and, whilst I might (and indeed do) make reference to 'revolutionary ideology' (in a value-neutral way, by the way) it is in order to enable my students to see that there IS another point of view. their job is to go away and look at all the differing points of view and decide for themselves which they prefer, and furthermore to demonstrate the underpinning of their preference by reference to authoritative sources.

In the UK, MB, we call this process 'education'. Fuck knows what you lot are doing in Canada???

[MB.]

In the UK, MB, we call this process 'education'. Fuck knows what you lot are doing in Canada??? :eh:

That's funny lol, I went to graduate school in the UK lol.

My role is not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think.

:|

Students are not 'initiates' and, whilst I might (and indeed do) make reference to 'revolutionary ideology' (in a value-neutral way, by the way) it is in order to enable my students to see that there IS another point of view. their job is to go away and look at all the differing points of view and decide for themselves which they prefer, and furthermore to demonstrate the underpinning of their preference by reference to authoritative sources.

What is it you teach?

My role is to educate and develop military medical personnel as part of a Bachelor's degree pathway.

Do you teach medical science to soldier-medics?

[Cartertonian]

What is it you teach?

Lots of things.

We run a specialist degree pathway for military allied health professionals (i.e. not doctors, but nurses, ODPs, Radiographers, Biomedical Scientists, etc). This week, I'm teaching 'Leadership & Management'. In a fortnight or so, I'm running a 'Disaster Relief' module. The week after that I'll be teaching research methodologies, and so it goes on.

My role is not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think.

To which MB responded with...

What's wrong with that? As an educationalist, it isn't my job to fill my students' heads with a lot of partisan nonesense, it's to show them what information is available and teach them how to critically analyse it and arrive at evidence-based conclusions of their own.

[Smilin' Dave]

Seeing intervention as strictly humanitarian or imperialist is false. There is an overlap between humanitarian objectives, practical concerns and an array of political objectives (including varieties of imperialism).

If the Coalition operation in Afghanistan were not crassly imperial in nature, then jurisdiction would have LONG AGO been handed over to a significant and serious (and jesus christ, I mean serious) peace keeping operation contingent.

... I defy you to name a peace-keeping outfit qualified to adequetely handle the situation in Afghanistan. Reconstruction has proven to be difficult to all manner of actors in Afghanistan (for various reasons), which is pretty well the only way to 'win' (in the sense of ending the conflict and preventing its reoccurance). In strictly military terms, peace keepers have generally struggled against aggressive non-state actors.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Seeing intervention as strictly humanitarian or imperialist is false.

Depends if we're talking about the effects or the cause.

Invading Iraq and Afghanistan will clearly have some humanitarian benefits (and clearly kill lots of people as well). Calling it a humanitarian gesture though would depend on the motivation for the invasion.

[MB.]

I defy you to name a peace-keeping outfit qualified to adequetely handle the situation in Afghanistan.

Since peace-keeping operations and force structures are assembled on an adhoc basis upon recommendation from DPKO fact-finding and research analysis...

[Smilin' Dave]

Calling it a humanitarian gesture though would depend on the motivation for the invasion.

Would the political capital that comes from a seemingly humanitarian intervention qualify at humanitarian motivation? It's certainly not imperilistic, so you can see where I'm coming from by disputing this binary choice being presented.

Since peace-keeping operations and force structures are assembled on an adhoc basis upon recommendation from DPKO fact-finding and research analysis...

Okay, so hypothetically what group or combination could succeed in Afghanistan?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Would the political capital that comes from a seemingly humanitarian intervention qualify at humanitarian motivation?

If you're asking if doing a good deed for amoral reasons but partly because of 'brownie points' qualifies as humanitarian, then I'd say 'no'. Something is humanitarian only if it is done for the sake of preserving human life/dignity etc.

It's easier to make that argument in the case of Afghanistan than Iraq, but then again we'd expect very different actions if humanitarianism was the main intent of the US (which was MB's point, I believe).

Imperialism tends to be economic and strategic these days and a bit more subtle in many respects. I'm not sure if we can really rule out Afghanistan being imperialist, even if we could find humanitarian motives.

[U184]

I have been hijacked...it now needs a splitting.

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm not sure if we can really rule out Afghanistan being imperialist, even if we could find humanitarian motives.

Why is this still binary? It is not as simple as imperialism or humanitarianism. Imperialism and humanitarianism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and they both represent fairly broad trends. Already, excluding other drivers, we find the idea that it has to be one specific item or the other to be problematic. Now add in other drivers, like the example of voter pressures I used previously.

If it wasn't imperialistic, why didn't they go for a standard peacekeeping force, right? Ergo, must be imperialism... or the US has been disappointed with the outcome of previous peacekeeping missions (they've been involved in enough that were for various reasons bungled) and tried a 'new approach' (an old approach repackaged by various interests). Or staggering incompetance? In both Iraq and Afghanistan the US seem to have taken a approach that once the 'bad guys' are gone, the locals will just naturally gravitate towards democracy, effective and pro-US government.

There are a multiplicity of possible and demonstrable factors involved. Imperialism vs. humanitarianism is a false narrative. Such a simplistic approach doesn't serve us well and we can do better.

Narrative... awww... now you've made me sound like Qatz