http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/we-are-protecting-afghan-civilians-from-ourselves/#comment-6664

Here is another interesting bit that should be added into the “Patriotism” kool-aid recipe that Americans are wont to imbibe. And while we’re at it, I think the very term “patriotism” is worth a lengthy discussion in an anthropoligical setting as well as who is best suited to defining it and determining its parameters, setting its measures for compliance and divergence. And yet, nobody does this. It’s just applied and everybody salutes.

To your first question:
Colleagues are those that I work with. (I was going to write that I never write about my colleagues on this blog, and then I remembered that there was one time that I referred to one in passing, for an event at Concordia: http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/1968-2008-from-vietnam-to-concordia/. Concordia has a long history of dissent, even rioting, and all the wrong people — from the inquisitorial Zionist Alan Dershowitz who says it is not a “real” university, to the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu who called it “Gaza U” — have understood that we are not a home to such scoundrels. We have warmly received Ward Churchill and many others like him. Those are my colleagues.)

Paula Loyd had a B.A. in anthropology, like yourself. Is that what makes her a colleague? In addition, she was an American, and worked for the Pentagon, via an international arms corporation BAE Systems. I don’t have colleagues in such places. I realize that some would like to order me to be appropriately sympathetic, and command my loyalties, but this is taking the definition of colleague far beyond just a stretch.

So to answer your question, no, Loyd was not a colleague. She was not a professional anthropologist, nor an academic. She was not in the employ of a university. She was not doing anthropological research in Afghanistan. She was not doing any kind of anthropological work, anywhere. She was neither a colleague nor a friend, nor an acquaintance.

Your second question is related, on the issue of commanding sympathies. I understand why people like you and others flock to this blog to read perspectives like you read in the article above — it is due to the fact that you cannot find them anywhere else, at least not conveniently, and not in English. This shows that there is a dearth of real, genuine debate, and that most people, most of the time, are not really being challenged about their beliefs and assumptions. That they choose to react with such blind rage and violence, points us to two valuable realizations: one is that some are unwilling to “unlearn” their programming, and the second is that as we can see their blind rage over mere words, imagine how the resistance in Afghanistan must think of both their words and actions. Until we stop stomping on these people, stage managing their reality, and pretending we can remix and re-author their future, their hatred for us is nothing less than to be expected, and it should be fully understandable…as long as you are willing to stop thinking that you were ordained by God to be in Afghanistan, and start thinking outside the uniform.

Some may not like the debate, and I realize that may be part of the reason why almost all of the anthropology blogs have not so much as mentioned Paula Loyd. They may not be celebrating her death (and neither do I), but they are certainly not indicating that they mourn her loss either (and nor do I). It does not matter to me what happened to Loyd, it was to be expected, and I have no respect for the work she was doing, nor for her mercenary colleague. That is not going to change, howl as some might.

I don’t blame troops for their circumstances. You know as well as I do, however, that (at least until 2005, which was the last time I had personal contact with people in the Canadian Forces considering going to Afghanistan), the decision to go to Afghanistan is a voluntary one in Canada. They have to sign up for it, consciously and deliberately, and they get paid extra. In fact, those I knew who were considering this option, were very frank and unambiguous about the fact that it was all about the money.

It does not matter how much fried bologna you have had to eat. When you make a conscious choice to seek payment for invading another country and killing the locals, you are no longer a mere victim of the system, untainted by the consequences of your decisions. Personal decision-making is what makes all the difference between the Canadian soldier who goes to Afghanistan and the one who does not — so that personal decision-making definitely matters and is present. In anthropology, we call this paying attention to “agency,” it’s not all about “structure” and “constraint.” If not, then the constraint thesis should apply to all, not just those who put on a uniform, but also drug dealers, gangsters, murderers, thieves, etc. In other words, once you activate that thesis, and you swear by it, then you no longer get to choose when the thesis applies. It does not just apply to your favourite “good guys” and only when they wear the right uniform. Otherwise the argument is a dishonest one and it can be dismissed.

To make the point, some note (repeatedly) that Canadian troops come from impoverished areas of Canada, such as Newfoundland. I worked on a maritime campus where Canadian Forces set up recruiting tents, preying on gullible youths with limited prospects and living through extreme financial pressures, so I know what they are talking about. I also know that for the few who sign up, the majority walk away. Once again, if structure mattered so much, we would not see so much agency. However, the maritime one is a bit of a stereotype. A tiny minority of those killed in Afghanistan have been from the maritime provinces. Have a look for yourself: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html. In fact, many come from the richer provinces.

There has been this incessant harping on the issue of “support the troops,” and we see it here in Canada too. (Having said that, note that a not a single Canadian military blogger has ever protested anything on this site, unlike their American counterparts.) If anyone thinks it is absent from Canada, have a look at this report, which indicates that this sort of thinking comes from the highest levels of government politics: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=CTVNewsAt11.

That link provides us a number of clues, at least if you are new to the debate. One is that “support the troops” is actually intended as a means of purchasing silence, for free. If you are loyal, you will shut up, and support the…mission employing the troops. These are also “human shields,” for a rotten argument that is indefensible and rejected by the majority of Canadians, and that is the argument that we need to be in Afghanistan.

In the American case, while not much different, the slogan incorporates a broader history. It is part of the Reaganite “America is standing tall again” ethos, backed up by George H.W. Bush who famously said, after invading Iraq the first time, that “we have finally kicked the Vietnam syndrome.” Imperialist America could now invade, conquer, and kill people in weaker nations, at will, without remorse, and without fear. “Support the troops” is the next piece of their puzzle, because they rely on voluntary enlistments (to minimize Vietnam-like political damage at home…showing us how much they really have not kicked the Vietnam syndrome), and they do not want people at home to scorn the troops as “baby killers,” not even when they actually kill babies. The amazing thing is that some Americans were damning in their criticisms of those who had been drafted, truly against their will, during the Vietnam war, only to have gone largely silent about those who voluntarily enlisted. “Kicking the Vietnam syndrome” has meant kicking the domestic opposition into respectful silence, and it has largely worked. It is only a very tiny, and courageous element, who will adopt “fuck the troops” as their banner…and you can check YouTube for this, and the reactions.

If you are sympathetic to the troops, by respecting their circumstances, then why were these persons not getting any support at all until they put on a uniform? They have to kill, on the command of the politicians, before we care about them? If we really cared about the squalor and desperation of working class poverty in Canada, we would have more of a heart than to effectively say: here put on these fatigues, get your hands bloody, die, and then I will support you. It seems like a cruel argument, that dishonestly appropriates “circumstances” to support and reinforce the very system that placed these individuals in their state of constraint.

If you care about them, care about them before they enlist. Do not wait for them to return in a casket before you decide to ceremoniously shed a tear for them (when there is no cost to you, and no cost to the system that devoured them).

(And when I say “you,” understand that I am not necessarily saying “you Florence.”)

That is my explanation, I do not follow simplistic lines of “sympathy” and “disloyalty,” I do not play the games that the powers that be created for us, and I do not let my sympathies be commanded or curtailed by anyone.

Well it must be just a handful, because I am not seeing any incoming links, so they can’t be sites that are heavily visited.

And that’s too bad. That means they are not doing the job I wanted them to do, as well as I wanted them to, which was to increase publicity for the argument, and to heighten the visibility of the blog and boost its presence in the search rankings. Otherwise, I don’t care about their rants, they serve my purposes.

I think I read this enough times that I can understand it and I followed the comments too. There are a couple of questions that aren’t being asked by anyone.

First off, let me say that I have a relative in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. Plus, I also have a BA in anthropology and I have friends in the US Army. So if anything about this seems defensive to you, you can guess why.

My question is – isn’t Paula Loyd your colleague? Is this the right way to speak about a colleague?

Second question – you don’t seem very sympathetic to the troops generally. Do you blame them for their circumstances?

I’ll wait to see if you answer and then I might follow up.

Great job. Thanks for your work.

I am all for providing generous aid to countries destroyed by the West, aid without conditions, and full restitution and reparations made.

That does not require troops, invasions, and propping up unpopular governments. It also means that Afghans get to decide who they invite into their communities, when, and how.

Cartman-style argument, sir. Have you even studied the logistics of a withdrawal, the timeframe and consequences and contigency plans?

“I fail to see how letting Afghanistan fall back into the 12th century in any way helps the “Afghan people”, and I fail to see how breaking all our western promises and commitments there will make anyone but the Taleban happy.”

No, I don’t accept this reasoning. First, stop defining other people’s “times” from the standpoint of your own metaphorical timezone. Nobody has appointed America as either the best representative or strongest defender of civilization and modernity either — not that I particularly adore either of those concepts. Second, if some leaders made commitments, they were both unsolicited, and unauthorized. As I said in response to your latest comment, the majority of Canadians want out, now. None were ever consulted about going in — so “we the people” made no promises. Leaving won’t just make the Taliban happy, it will make Canadians happy. So, I would think that makes me a democrat, and I can live with that.

Finally, you say that no one has tried to cast the Afghan “mission” as a feminist one. That is simply incorrect, I mean factually wrong. Laura Bush clearly did so, and I showed the video where she speaks the words of women’s liberation in relation to the Afghan invasion (here). This was echoed by George Bush, reinforced by the Feminist Majority Foundation, and at the very least implied in the work of Greg Mortenson. So it’s simply neither fair nor accurate to say that nobody has played the feminism card, especially not in one week where two major media outlets celebrate, one, female GIs, and two, more female Marines in the field, as if this were a woman’s war after all.

If they are misogynist medievalists, they are far from the only ones. Indeed, the most powerful ones currently occupy the government supported by the West — so if this was intended as an argument for “staying the course,” it’s not a good one.

If they are misogynist medievalists, they are Afghanistan’s misogynist medievalists, and not mine to correct or sort out. There are many others, elsewhere in the world, including some staunch Roman Catholics I know, including the so-called Christian Zionists you mentioned. So, just how far and wide will our bombardments extend now? Again, not a good argument for the Afghan obsession.

I don’t think the Taliban are noble savages. I don’t think they are savages, period.

“If the west were to just pull out, as you seem to be advocating, a lot of civilians would face a repeat of the fall of Kabul after the soviets pulled out, where massacres were an ordinary occurrence.”

Yes, I am advocating pulling out, and not just me: the majority of Canadians, who want to do so right now. You called it walking away in another comment — I would prefer something faster than walking. Incidentally, the Government of Canada had promised an earlier withdrawal date, years ago — we are there on an “extension” now. This is a question of democracy at home now, where it should count for Canadians: the will of the majority is being ignored by the government. So some of what I am doing is advocacy, and a lot of it is repeating the majority view.

Now, a lot of massacres occurred before the Taliban took power, I think you forget that. Indeed, the arrival of the Taliban in Kabul was celebrated as the arrival of order, peace, and stability. And as GlobalPost’s correspondents found (see here), some people in Kabul still remember those days fondly, including at least some secular feminists and Communists.

So really if these are arguments for staying, none of them hold any logical validity for me, and no political legitimacy with the majority of Canadians. Both NATO and the U.S. will have to learn to accommodate that fact.

Humm, thats a interesting statement. To begin with, the whole “night-letter” system of intimidation is based on the threat of killing civilians. The whole campaign against schools is targeted against civilians. To be strict, the continual slaughtering of Afghan policeforces is aimed at civilians, though Ill cede that one as a grey-area since they are in uniform. As the recent bombing in Kabul shows, and as several others also show, the Taleban is perfectly willing to kill civilians in order to score symbolic points. As for actual massacres , see as an example http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/afghanistan/. This is a natural part of any insurgency strategy, and is quite obvious. The real scandal lies in the fact that it took 7 long long years before the NATO forces came up with a counter-strategy that didnt involve a merely kinetic answer. I have yet to hear of a deliberate act of punishment killing being carried out by NATO on purpose.

We leftists have a tendency to forget the brutality of the Afghan reality, and paint the Talebs as noble savages. Theyre not. Theyre a bunch of misogynist medievalist conservatives, much like your basic christian zionist. They dont have the hearts and minds of a lot of the population, but they got them by the balls and nerves. If the west were to just pull out, as you seem to be advocating, a lot and lot of civilians would face a repeat of the fall of Kabul after the soviets pulled out, where massacres were an ordinary occurence.

Let’s put it this way: if Taliban bombings deliberately kill civilians as their intended target, then so do U.S.

As for other possibilities, I will reserve my commentary for that video post I mentioned in my other reply.