The PenOpticon

Gwynne Dyer’s piece in the June 12 Toronto Star, Same War, Different Players, is a concise but cogent analysis of the military and political state of affairs in Afghanistan. As Dyer notes, the Afghani’s have borne many invasions and occupations over the past two centuries and have had to learn to “ambush, harass and bleed the foreigners for as long as it takes” in order to survive. Now Hamid Karzai has started to negotiate with various warlords and may soon (according to Dyer) begin talks with what is left of the Taliban. In spite of the West’s (one hopes) best intentions, Afghanistan will most likely end up with some form of power-sharing arrangement that is more in keeping with the actual culture(s) of the region. Perhaps this new arrangement will be based on a democratic framework. Perhaps not. As Dyer dryly concludes: “There is time for lots of killing yet. But Afghanistan stands a reasonable chance of sorting itself out once the Western armies leave.

Dyer’s argument resonates with me because he is essentially suggesting that we might all be better off obeying the “Prime Directive”, and, it is probably true that leaving people to their own devices to work things out for themselves is often be the best policy. Before the era of instantaneous communication, that was the way the world worked. A fifth century Mongolian would never know if there was a war or a famine among the Aztecs of Central America. Vikings would have been blissfully unaware of the plight of Polynesian islanders. When it comes to war, famine and all other geopolitical “bad things”, does instant communication always mean we must bear instantaneous moral responsibility? That’s a hard one, is it not?

Of course, the Prime Directive is a slippery concept. It can look like an attractive option for those on the outside of Afghanistan or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It can appear to be an utterly immoral option from the perspective of those who have rockets whistling over their heads and bulldozers ripping up their homes. Things get even more slippery when you realize that some external powers have already interfered by providing some combination of weapons, personnel, etc.

As much as I admire Dyer’s argument, it is hard to imagine that Middle East hotspots will be quickly defused after the withdrawal of “Western armies. I’d much rather imagine a global, cowardly retreat of all armies. Perhaps on a global scale, the applied use of cowardice will bring about the end of most of the world’s armies. (Ha!) Wouldn’t that be a grand thing?

[July 16 - Today at least 8 7 Canadians were killed during Israel's bombing of Lebanon. It's all too easy to forget there are thousands of foreign nationals living in that country. It is depressing to think that Stephen Harper actually mimed Bush's exact words about Israel's right to defend itself. As others have pointed out, every bomb Israel drops may as well be emblazoned with a big "Hiya, from Uncle Sam!". Hezbollah and other militant groups will not forget the country that has been bankrolling Israel's military escapades.]