Already a subscriber? Log in
It is hard not to sympathise with Frostrup’s point. During my own time in Kabul I witnessed plenty of examples of female subjugation, and was glad the West was present to help address some of these problems. Western policymakers were, at the time, eager to portray the entire mission as a morally good, progress-guaranteeing task.
It’s just that the stabilisation of Afghanistan now seems to be beyond our means and our will. And it may no longer be in our national interest, which is why David Cameron has called a halt to the mission before it has achieved its aims. What will follow is an ugly civil war where the West will seek to safeguard its minimum interests, perhaps through drone strikes and support — military or otherwise — to perceived allies. The Cold War produced plenty of similar situations.
One of the reasons for our failure hitherto was that we probably helped progressive forces push too hard and too fast against the ultra-conservative grain of Afghan society. That, in turn, allowed the Taliban to portray our mission as not just against them and Al Qaeda, but also against the Afghan way of life. They shaped a narrative — much as they did about the Soviets — which, along with indiscriminate violence, overwhelmed us.
So the way we helped focus on women’s rights — just and proper in itself — may actually have been part of the mission’s problems. And it seems, at this stage, not only beyond our capabilities, but also a difficult thing to tell bereaved parents of a soldier that this is what their child died for.
Because you read about afghanistan
Also by Daniel Korski
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in