Archives

In Afghanistan, “culture eats strategy for breakfast”

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jul 03, 2010

Credit: faratarazmarzha.org

While discussing Afghanistan — the “graveyard of empires” — a friend of mine blurted something that I’ve never hard before, but that I think should be tattooed on the forehead of General David Petraeus so he sees it every morning when he peers into the mirror.

What my friend said is simple: in Afghanistan, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”

Translation: You can craft the savviest military strategy ever. But unless God intervenes, deep-seated culture will surely defeat your tactical smarts.

The tribal culture of “honor” has already trumped democracy in Afghanistan. Despite being suave and sophisticated, President Hamid Karzai rarely defends individual rights, a cornerstone of democracy. Instead, he quietly condones punishments inflicted in the name of tribal honor, from widespread gang-rapes of women to acid attacks on schoolgirls.

Why would a Muslim, routinely described as a “moderate,” hand so much power to feudal warlords? For years, military strategists have told me it’s because Karzai has to avoid carnage at all costs.

But does violating innocents to pre-empt further violence make sense?

Sadly, yes, and that’s where the power of culture enters Afghanistan’s grim picture. In societies influenced by Arab culture, a massive motivator of action is asabiyya or tribal solidarity.

This analysis originated with the Muslim intellectual Ibn Khaldun, sometimes known as the father of sociology. He studied how Muslim peoples evolve, especially in environments that are arid, remote, or, in the case of Afghanistan, mountainous. Wherever the land is harsh, there’s virtually no division of labor. Human survival depends on bonds of kinship, and those bonds can easily degenerate into feelings of group superiority.

Now what happens when tribes compete for superiority? You get a cycle of vendetta and counter-vendetta. In the end, warlords could be more legitimate than any democratically elected parliament — more legitimate because they’re more authentic to the Afghan experience.

No wonder a moderate president serially submits to thugs. No wonder military might has been a feeble backwater to the tide of history. No wonder I’ve got the sinking suspicion that Barack Obama’s decision to deploy more troops can’t adequately help the good people of Afghanistan.

Soldiers can restore stability to the neighborhood. But when “stability” means “cyclical violence,” what does it really mean to win?