The day before yesterday and a few days before that I made allusions to and wrote about Dr. Brydon and what happened during the First Afghan War. In late 2001 I was pretty darn convinced that what is happening today was going to happen unless we fixed Afghanistan, first and foremost. Not only was it our duty, but it was in our long-term vital interests to rebuild the country. We did not. Although we pretended to, now, sadly, the consequences of our pretensions result in the suffering of others.
Today William Arkin reveals the very depressing (now it is, then it was triumphalist), but unsurprising, mindset which prevailed all over Washington in late 2001 about Afghanistan:
In the end, Rumsfeld, Franks and Washington in general could not exploit the tactical success delivered by air power. No one in the intelligence world evidently understood the Taliban or the Afghan situation well enough to anticipate or recognize what was happening. Washington thus failed to formulate a post-Taliban strategy.
There are many reasons for this but one of them is crystal clear: policymakers (and most Americans) are utterly ignorant of history. I hated the international relations program I was in a few years ago for precisely that reason: there was no history. The students knew nothing of history and most were there because they wanted a job with the government. As one told me, "You know, little work and great benefits." Of course, we learned a lot about flow charts, the foreign policy bureaucracy and a few useful IR theories but we learned absolutely no history, we did no case studies and role playing? Who are you kidding? Instead we took statistics and argued that international politics were rational and predictable as long as you had the right theory or model for your computer to run. (Much like the markets these days.)
In my opinion, history is a critical, essential tool in the formation of foreign policy. The value it provides is similar to the value stock charts and earnings histories provide investors and how a person's family medical history informs her doctor. As ever mutual fund prospectus in the world says, "past results are no indication of future results."
Indeed, history won't tell you where you are going, but it will help you understand how you got there. Ideally it helps the policy maker formulate solutions for moving forward, as well. We ignore history too much in this country and we (and others) suffer because of it.
Afghanistan is the epitome of my point.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 50
Looking at history, without the Marshall Plan, don't you think Japan and Germany would continued to have threatened the world over time?
In the former Yugoslavia, a similar situation is brewing, where human services have not been managed or provided for effectively. I predict continuing strife in that region too.
Great article and good points. Too bad we can't get anyone to listen.
Kennan was my kind of policy maker, informed by history yet never ruled by it. He was open minded enough to realize that on ocassion things really do change. But that the change had to be managed in a way that didn't fly in the face of the past. He is missed.
You have phrased so well what i was thinking all along..
There is so much ignorance involved in the political process all over the world..unfortunately the seat of the leader is not the wise one anymore, if ever...i for one, am drawn more and more to learn history..something that never would occur to me in the past..thanks for the courageous article ! slaughter those holy cows!
Everyone else: thank you for your kind compliments.
Liz: yes, I am an idealist, tempered by a lot of reality. Call me cautiously optimistic about the future but still aware that the worst case often does happen.
I had to share this. When my 20 year old son was in 5th grade, his science teacher told a group of parents at a PTA meeting that she was going to be loading the kids down with homework. She knew that it was going to be a lot for them to take in, and that the other teachers were going to be doing the same. Then she said, (and this is a direct quote I will never forget) "If it is a choice between doing their Science homework and their English or History homework, Science is much more important to their future than those subjects."
I was not the only parent in the room whose mouth dropped open. It was astounding.
Thanks for the article. It is well done. Also thanks for the links. Good information.
You bring up an interesting point. History is essential to a nation and the choices it makes. At the same time, science, engineering and innovation are certainly as important and probably more. At the expense of history? No. Perhaps getting rid of high school and university sports and requiring more history is a better solution. Don't get me wrong, I love sports. But it's only a game. On the other hand history, science, math, engineering and innovation are life sustaining.
Hmmm . . . . me needs to think more on this. Thanks!
Good article Sean-Paul. I did not realize the lack of history in IR programs. History is very important in this area. I am always ranting on political talk and movements when they seem to ignore similar historical situations. I now know that could be because they have no historical background.
i totally agree
Great article !!!
But don't get rid of sport -- then I wouldn't have anything to study! Besides, while so many of the sport leaders (and occasionally politicians) claim that sport and politics are separate.... they never have been!
All joking aside: would it scare you if I said I have read his three most influential books? Many problems with them, but Fukuyama is an interesting thinker, at a minimum. His End Of History stuff, as you so well note, was bogus, but that 'Last Man' stuff? Very compelling about the modern democratic condition, if you ask me.
Regardless, thanks for the smile. Those are always welcome!
But by the same token, I am puzzled how Iran became afundalist Muslim state when most of the population are 'nominal' muslims.
Takes generations to make changes that are deep. That means the population needs to be with the reform or under control of the program.
He scares me (Bush that is).
Why do you think we manage to turn such a fascinating thing as history into something most students learn to hate and spend the rest of their lives ignoring? I've long been intrigued by that question--is it because so much of our "history" has been sanitized, stripped of the elements that make it fascinating? Because it's mostly lies? Because we to turn it into a series of dates and headlines? You should feel good about how many history lovers your article attracted--thanks!
Good article. History is not an optional reality. Nobody seems to get that , except the cliche writers.
" Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. "
.
There are two, amongst others, problems with history. One is ignorance. People think that history is about dead issues. They are not. Wrters of history are dead, but history practices go on forever because every generation has to learn anew. If the current administration had bothered to read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom written by T.J. Lawrence, a history book, we would not have lost any American in Iraq because we would have known better.
As for Afghanistan, the real ground where terror was supposed to be eliminated and keeps recurring, their history is like returning plantar warts. They keep coming up and are hard to die.
In the 1800s, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the stories of Sherlock Holmes and he started the friendship and association between Holmes and Dr. Watson on chapter one with the latter renting space in Holmes' flat. The doctor had returned (remember, this fiction was written in the 1800s) wounded from AFGHANISTAN!!!
So the British had been dealing with this problem for ages and now we inherit it after the Soviets had to get out. Obviously that country needs world attention and we all the help we can get.
The second problem with history ( I said there were two) is that, when we don't ignore it, we think it applies to less capable human beings and not to ourselves. That is ethnocentrism and arrogance and we all know that eventually history deals with those harshly.
Paul.
How can you get where you want to go, from where you are now, if you don't know where you have been? If you don't know history your fate will run you in circles, repeating the same mistakes. Like a dog chasing it's own tail. Wearing itself out and expending all resources and never achieving progress.
History books should be read with skepticism, but are still fun and interesting.
It is a mistake to consider history books to be factual writing. They are opinion based on the writers view and perspective.
Remember all political leaders will work as hard as possible to dissuade you from being aware of history unless it can be used to advance their own agenda.
As Paul noted:
"my history teacher was a rotten SOB who had no interest in the topic and taught it poorly. It was all dates and memorization, no context, and no effort at all to make it interesting."
History should be taught by people who studied history, not by those who are simply teaching it so they can do something else at the school. I grant you: history can be boring. But so much of it, nay, most of it is absolutely fascinating. It is the story of humankind and essential to our understanding of ourselves as Gibbs Williams so incisivcely put it:
a theme or two central to ones life will inevitably surface..
And no matter what post-modern, deconstructionist, Derridan spin you put on it, Cena, history is real. History tells the tale of facts. Did not Luther tack his thesis to the door at the Cathedral on October 31, 1517, thus beginning the Protestant Reformation?
Is it not a fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated at 6:01 p.m. on April 4, 1968, on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee?
Did the English not get thrown out of Afghanistan at the end of the First Anglo-Afghan War? They did. That's a fact. And so are the preceeding two examples.
Now, how you interpret that, that is called historiography and then your definition would be correct. But history is real. It happened and contrary to Fukuyama it will continue its inexorable course through our lives and on until our orange sun burns itself out and perhaps even after that.
I like reading history books, I said, "History books like all books reflect a viewpoint and use of a few facts to advance an idea.
I will say the same thing a bit differently. Books, identified as "history" can contain some facts, but will contain opinion, and persepctive about the facts. I will add that sometimes there is so much opinion and speculation, the facts are hard to find.
Does the Revolutionary War Count?
Last time I looked the war of 1812 was against England, not Canada?
Does the Great Southern Rebellion count?
Does the made up but actual War with Mexico count?
Do we have to forget Ronald Regan's spectular invasions of Panama(1989) and Granada(1981)
WWI was not a U.S. War, but U. S. fought in it.
WWII most certainly was a U.S. War after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Then there is the Korean War, The Vietnamese War, The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
I think Bush, some years back declared "mission accomplished" for Iraq.
Did I read that you said
"History books are a LIE, and are just one sides story. For example, the war of 1812 was NOT won by the USA. Canada beat them back 3 times and burned down the whitehouse three times too, will not see that in their history books. In fact the USA have not one war to date!
Scott C., Jun 15, 2006
To Scott: everything is a lie, so why bother learning anything other than math, except we know that is all relative too. Must be tough living in your world. ;-)
Canada was a colony and did not have its own Navy. The British burned the U. S. Capital, not the Canadians.
Scott, while the British did burn the buildings at Washingtion D.C., they were unable to capture Baltimore.
The U.S. is not considered the "loser" in this war, except perhaps by Scott and the Canadians.
Sean-Paul- I agree with you, and a very good article.
Duty: because we supported the mujaheddin (not the Taliban) versus the Soviets and promised to aid in reconstruction once they defeated the Soviets. A promise is a solemn vow, a promise of future action is a duty. We did not do as we promised. We abandoned the country to its fate and the Taliban took over after several years of civil war. That should answer the duty question part.
Vital interest: this one should be a lot easier to understand. It was in our own best interest to rebuild Afghanistan--at least to a degree where they could feed and clother and govern themselves without fearing internal violence--so that a new Taliban (or the old one, like it is now doing) doesn't shack up with al Qaeda or some second or third generation off-shoot and attack us once again.
Finally, with all due respect, I find this comment:
(if you compare the standard of living of all its neighbors which were conquered -- its pretty obvious it would have been better for the Afghans had they been conquered)
to be extremely arrogant. First and foremost, it is their country to choose and decide how they best want to live as long as they do not wage aggressive war against their neighbors, harbor terrorists like al Qaeda who attack their neighbors or foreign countries and so long as the ruling regime doesn't commit genocide, as all three are codified in international law. In short: as long as they mind their own business what does it matter to you or I what their standard of living is or their style of government?
Secondly, it is that kind of thinking that led us into Iraq to "democratize" them. How well has that worked out?
The danger is that books of this sort will become the source of subsequent history texts, and thereby perpetuate facts of dubious origin.
If I was going to write a book about history, it would be a book that analyzes and researches the credentials of the AUTHORS first. I strongly urge those who wish to study history to study up on its authors before wasting your time reading texts that turn out to be historical revisionism, myths, or worse.
Here's a great book that will give you perspective: The End of the 20th century and the End of an Age, by John Lukacs. Lukacs is a conservative historian and I am a left liberal, but I found this book compelling. I could not put it down.