A darkness visible: a portrait of Afghanistan
“He is without a doubt one of the very few photographers whose work from Afghanistan, the result of a deep understanding and passion, transcends photographic technique, composition and tonality. What astonishes me as a fellow photographer is his power in capturing the true soul of the place, namely the Afghan peoples mix of pain, grief, happiness, pride and ability to rebuild and continue living.” Reza
This is a good time to refer to a fantastic series of photographs of Afghanistan, “A Darkness Visible” by British photographer Seamus Murphy, published as a photobook. The photographs are now being exhibited at the VII gallery in DUMBO, New York City, until December 24th, 2009. Seamus Murphy began photographing Afghanistan in 1994, and this book, A Darkness Visible: Afghanistan, shows the rise of the Taliban and the impact of U.S. invasion (book review at Dispatches).
This reference to photographs from Afghanistan is timely because next week, the future strategy of the USA for the war in Afghanistan will be disclosed by president Obama. Following, we will hear endless discussions in the media describing the plans to be good, describing the strategy to be wrong, and everything in between. No matter how much we talk and how much it is done, calling it right or wrong will surely depend on who is affected. Most of us witness the war like a reality series that is flashed to us in ways that make the story difficult to comprehend, and so we build an imagined reality tainted by our views of moral priorities. It is striking to me that this is a war at large ignored by the society in the USA. Living here it never feels that we are at war in Afghanistan and we appear to forget that we are at war also in Iraq. We are busy here eating turkeys.
We hear that the war in Afghanistan is an absolutely key priority for the security of the USA and its allies, for the war against terror, and we hear that we must win the war. This is said by the people who know well, we must believe them. The problem is that when you rationalize those statements, they become very difficult to justify, the whole theory becomes thin air that does not hold. Similar statements were said during the Vietnam war, and we know who it ended. More than a trillion dollars spent, thousands of lives gone in wars fought miles away from the USA and from other countries that provide support to the war. It seems to me that the international strategy has become trapped by the initial beginnings, the aftermath of 9/11. Difficult was then to imagine that battling a small terrorist group named Al-Quaeda would turn to be the longest war in the recent history of the USA. Eight years have passed and the fiasco of the strategy driven by the previous USA administration appears to live on, surprisingly, with the new administration. It seems to me that new priories need to be defined and without those it will be impossible to understand why we need to win this war, we have a difficult time to even understand what this war is about.
General Petraeus stated not long ago that the main objective in Afghanistan was to assure that Al-Quaeda does not use the lands for future training camps and as the launching area for future terrorist attacks to the USA. If this is the case, then, do we need to fight this war to win the war? Do we need a presence of close to 100K soldiers in Afghanistan to limit the moves of few terrorists in the region? It seems unreasonable to me, it seems out of proportion.
At the end, basic principles remain unchanged. The best way to limit terrorism based on radical beliefs is to reduce extreme poverty, to provide societies and their people with financial prosperity, to offer education and to have governance that protects human rights and freedom. And to use diplomacy, as difficult as it may seem. Perhaps we need 100k soldiers to achieve stability in the third poorest country in the world. Problem is that history is against using this method to achieve this purpose. This is a land that has proven to resist the most powerful empires in the past. It is difficult to change a country fighting a war.
It should not be forgotten that 9/11 happened at large because of faulty security measures across intelligence departments and airports in the USA, it did not happen because of the Taliban. Perhaps we could have used a fraction of 1 trillion dollars to deploy effective safeguards at countries threatened by terrorists, including the USA. Perhaps we could have used the remaining money to promote education and fight extreme poverty in countries around the world by providing assistance to societies that are open to it. We could have been more effective showing positive examples for change, rather than fighting a war that seems to have no positive ending. A war for which we have little to show for.
