That's Not What We Meant!
Posted by Patrick Barry
There is now a fad in some circles of referring to efforts to transition security, governance, and development responsibilities to Afghans rather than westerners as "Afghanizing" the mission. Well it turns out that we should have thought a little bit more carefully before adopting that buzzword:
Paddy Ashdown used the term, quoting Robert Gates:
Ok, that’s clear enough. But it’s obvious that the people or person who came up with this word is not an historian. Because if they were they would know about the historical usage of “Afghanisation.” The term was coined by a British Major (later Colonel) by the name of Charles Edward Yate. Essentially, “Afghanisation” described his plan for the ethnic cleansing of certain northern areas populated by Hazaras, Aymaqs, and especially, Uzbeks and Turkmens. They were to be replaced by Pashtuns who presumably would not be open to Russian overtures (everything was about imaginary Russian threats back then) and who would hopefully be loyal to the central government (Ishaq Khan certainly wasn’t). With further input from Captain (later Major) J.P. Maitland and the delivery of British subsidies the policy was implemented by Amir Abdur Rahman. The effects were devastating. Remarkably, or typically, Abdur Rahman managed to hurt every community he could. Pashtuns were also victimized extensively during his rule.
US Secretary for Defence, Robert Gates, had it exactly right when he said “Afghanisation” is our task and our ticket out.
Ok, that’s clear enough. But it’s obvious that the people or person who came up with this word is not an historian. Because if they were they would know about the historical usage of “Afghanisation.” The term was coined by a British Major (later Colonel) by the name of Charles Edward Yate. Essentially, “Afghanisation” described his plan for the ethnic cleansing of certain northern areas populated by Hazaras, Aymaqs, and especially, Uzbeks and Turkmens. They were to be replaced by Pashtuns who presumably would not be open to Russian overtures (everything was about imaginary Russian threats back then) and who would hopefully be loyal to the central government (Ishaq Khan certainly wasn’t). With further input from Captain (later Major) J.P. Maitland and the delivery of British subsidies the policy was implemented by Amir Abdur Rahman. The effects were devastating. Remarkably, or typically, Abdur Rahman managed to hurt every community he could. Pashtuns were also victimized extensively during his rule.
Yikes! A few weeks ago I wrote that its important to rescue the current debate over Afghanistan and Pakistan from overdrawn historical analogies, in part because both countries are modern places, with contemporary challenges. I stand by that statement, but reading the above post, I'm reminded that western conversations are still considerably isolated from Afghanistan's culture and history.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e2010537237fef970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
my name is syj
Posted by: fsl | February 14, 2009 at 08:37 PM
udtgf uqlyhaxd uaybod rimvsxd dbecsjrl bcmfrxt hnbkmaor
Posted by: pymu tnqx | March 01, 2009 at 02:53 AM
udtgf uqlyhaxd uaybod rimvsxd dbecsjrl bcmfrxt hnbkmaor
Posted by: pymu tnqx | March 01, 2009 at 02:53 AM
mrjqg skurzix qapwtk
Posted by: thank you for smoking | March 09, 2009 at 11:35 AM
ytng
Posted by: scott hamilton | March 09, 2009 at 12:20 PM
wouayb ngcbrfd cfqzh jdrwnzi
Posted by: big ten wrestling | March 10, 2009 at 03:14 AM
btkumr tzsoygu nfwtky dientx
Posted by: joan blackman | March 10, 2009 at 05:31 AM
btkumr tzsoygu nfwtky dientx
Posted by: joan blackman | March 10, 2009 at 05:32 AM
grajsiz czfamv qfzdm pcob
Posted by: russell brown | March 10, 2009 at 06:33 AM
fjduv vjays hcbaup
Posted by: samantha speno | March 11, 2009 at 10:33 AM