Is there a politician in the house?
I find it hard to comprehend the frightful, devastating, monstrous political incompetence of people who have done nothing but politics their whole life long and who are surrounded by friends and advisers with the same interest. In a circle of professional postage stamp dealers and collectors, one could be sure at least of one thing: that they would be knowledgeable about the mechanics of collecting, storing, exhibiting and trading postage stamps, and that at least some of them would have enough understanding of the trade and the market not to ruin themselves in a few months. But a congregation of politicians around a man like Gordon Brown who has never thought of anything but politics allows him to lead them all into a policy and a set of policy statements that a mental defective would recognize as a mandate for disaster with the date left blank.
I am speaking of the Afghanistan policy - so to describe it! - set out by Brown at the Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad. They amount to telling the public that they would present the supposed head of the Afghan state, Hamid Karzai, with a list of demands: reform corruption out of the Afghan state, raise and train fairly swiftly a fairly considerable number of soldiers and policemen, and follow the West's idea of correct politics in all of this. Of course, any government that prominently features Peter Mandelson should be careful about lecturing anyone on corruption; but that is not the point. The point is that these idiots don't seem to realize that there is such an institution as the mass media. They do not seem to imagine that their words will be circulated, printed, translated, and read in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It does not seem to enter their heads - and these are people who fought and won electoral campaigns! - that this will brand Karzai with the brand of a man so corrupt that his own allies - or rather masters - feel the need to bully him. And that it will brand him further, not as president of anything, but as the West's obedient servant in Kabul. Are you totally mad, or blind, or drunk, that you cannot see that if you want to build up an Afghan state led by Karzai, that is the worst possible thing you could have done about it? You not only treat him like a puppet, but you tell the world about it.
And as the geniuses who lead us publicly humiliate president Karzai, let us remember a few things. We did not go into Afghanistan to build a Western state under Karzai, but to fight the Taleban and Al Qaeda. That remains our goal, and anything that takes our attention and power away from it is a distraction. Nation-building might be nice, but it is not essential; keeping Al Qaeda engaged, committed, bleeding and dying, until even the fanatics are afraid of joining it - that is. Those who are willing to help us in this fight are our allies; those who help our enemies are our enemies. And let us remember that whatever else Karzai may be, he has been on our side from the beginning. And that has not been a cheap decision. While our brilliant leaders in Westminster and Washington DC risk nothing worse than egg on face if anything goes wrong, anyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan who openly sides against our enemies, along with their families and friends, is in the constant, immediate and serious danger of death. And not just any kind of death, either; our enemies specialize and delight in the most atrocious cruelty. This is what faces Hamid Karzai every day of his life, and we should bear that in mind any time we consider his personality and position.
I am not saying that we should put up with the notorious corruption of the Afghan government. But this is a country which, on top of centuries of anarchy, has suffered forty years of civil war. The Westernizing elite that once existed sided with the Soviet Union in the civil war, and were swept away; even the tribal leadership was devastated and brutalized by the revolutionary movement of the Taleban. Any nation-building to be made must be made with extraordinarily unpromising material on an extraordinarily unpromising ground; we must get them to speak and think in a language they have no notion of. And that being the case, it would be better to approach these men with all possible respect, instead of publicly treating them as the Quislings their enemies already take them to be. Ultimately, we cannot avoid some sort of nation-building; there has to be some kind of government in Afghanistan to help, and if possible collaborate, in the ongoing struggle against Taleban and Al Qaeda. But as we have to have friends there, we would be stupid to treat them as slaves. Especially in public. Anyone who has seen, even in TV, the carefully studied dignity and elegance of Hamid Karzai must undertand that this is a man to whom externals matter. To be treated as a schoolboy to be lectured (and that is a polite assessment of Gordon Brown's words) will hurt him personally as well as politically. No wonder that he is said to be paranoid about what his supposed allies will do next, and fearful of being dumped.
Good heavens, is this not all basic commonsense? Is that not what my grandmother would prescribe, if faced with the business of fighting a war in that country, for that purpose? Is there anything about it that is difficult, elaborate, or specialistic? And if not, why in the name of Heaven and anything that is sane do the leaders of the West do exactly what is guaranteed to make success most difficult?
I am speaking of the Afghanistan policy - so to describe it! - set out by Brown at the Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad. They amount to telling the public that they would present the supposed head of the Afghan state, Hamid Karzai, with a list of demands: reform corruption out of the Afghan state, raise and train fairly swiftly a fairly considerable number of soldiers and policemen, and follow the West's idea of correct politics in all of this. Of course, any government that prominently features Peter Mandelson should be careful about lecturing anyone on corruption; but that is not the point. The point is that these idiots don't seem to realize that there is such an institution as the mass media. They do not seem to imagine that their words will be circulated, printed, translated, and read in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It does not seem to enter their heads - and these are people who fought and won electoral campaigns! - that this will brand Karzai with the brand of a man so corrupt that his own allies - or rather masters - feel the need to bully him. And that it will brand him further, not as president of anything, but as the West's obedient servant in Kabul. Are you totally mad, or blind, or drunk, that you cannot see that if you want to build up an Afghan state led by Karzai, that is the worst possible thing you could have done about it? You not only treat him like a puppet, but you tell the world about it.
And as the geniuses who lead us publicly humiliate president Karzai, let us remember a few things. We did not go into Afghanistan to build a Western state under Karzai, but to fight the Taleban and Al Qaeda. That remains our goal, and anything that takes our attention and power away from it is a distraction. Nation-building might be nice, but it is not essential; keeping Al Qaeda engaged, committed, bleeding and dying, until even the fanatics are afraid of joining it - that is. Those who are willing to help us in this fight are our allies; those who help our enemies are our enemies. And let us remember that whatever else Karzai may be, he has been on our side from the beginning. And that has not been a cheap decision. While our brilliant leaders in Westminster and Washington DC risk nothing worse than egg on face if anything goes wrong, anyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan who openly sides against our enemies, along with their families and friends, is in the constant, immediate and serious danger of death. And not just any kind of death, either; our enemies specialize and delight in the most atrocious cruelty. This is what faces Hamid Karzai every day of his life, and we should bear that in mind any time we consider his personality and position.
I am not saying that we should put up with the notorious corruption of the Afghan government. But this is a country which, on top of centuries of anarchy, has suffered forty years of civil war. The Westernizing elite that once existed sided with the Soviet Union in the civil war, and were swept away; even the tribal leadership was devastated and brutalized by the revolutionary movement of the Taleban. Any nation-building to be made must be made with extraordinarily unpromising material on an extraordinarily unpromising ground; we must get them to speak and think in a language they have no notion of. And that being the case, it would be better to approach these men with all possible respect, instead of publicly treating them as the Quislings their enemies already take them to be. Ultimately, we cannot avoid some sort of nation-building; there has to be some kind of government in Afghanistan to help, and if possible collaborate, in the ongoing struggle against Taleban and Al Qaeda. But as we have to have friends there, we would be stupid to treat them as slaves. Especially in public. Anyone who has seen, even in TV, the carefully studied dignity and elegance of Hamid Karzai must undertand that this is a man to whom externals matter. To be treated as a schoolboy to be lectured (and that is a polite assessment of Gordon Brown's words) will hurt him personally as well as politically. No wonder that he is said to be paranoid about what his supposed allies will do next, and fearful of being dumped.
Good heavens, is this not all basic commonsense? Is that not what my grandmother would prescribe, if faced with the business of fighting a war in that country, for that purpose? Is there anything about it that is difficult, elaborate, or specialistic? And if not, why in the name of Heaven and anything that is sane do the leaders of the West do exactly what is guaranteed to make success most difficult?