• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Joe Biden
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

The Gray Lady and Withdrawing US Troops From Afghanistan

The New York Times once again reveals its persistent moral ambiguity about what’s right or wrong in Afghanistan.
By Peter Isackson • Mar 02, 2020
Withdrawing from Afghanistan, US withdrawal Afghanistan, Taliban peace deal, Taliban peace, Afghanistan war, war in Afghanistan, Afghan war, Afghanistan peace deal, Peter Isackson, US war in Afghanistan

© Zef Art

The New York Times editorial board weighs in with its ethical take on the news of the agreement with Taliban leaders to end the US military presence in Afghanistan. The newspaper’s editorial describes the peace deal as “a ticket out of Afghanistan for American troops who’ve been there far too long.” 

If the title wasn’t already attributed to the overhyped US “deal of the century” for the Middle East, the agreement to end the US presence in Afghanistan, though for a different reason, has a stronger claim to being called the “deal of the century.” Whether it corresponds to the concept of a “deal” or should simply be seen as the result of withering American intent could be a matter for debate. But it promises in its uncertain way to mark the end of an ongoing event that has, in some sense, defined this century since the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.


Why We Should Call It the “War for Terror”

READ MORE


The Times makes a direct comparison between the Taliban agreement and the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Americans remember the retreat from Saigon as a final moment of humiliation to end the most traumatically shameful episode in the nation’s recent history.

The editorial even seems to bury that sense of shame when it offers this sliver of philosophical reflection: “That is not to say either deal was wrong. On the contrary, recognizing when a fight has become useless is the right thing to do. Americans have long run out of good reasons to continue dying and killing in a land whose many tribes make it notoriously difficult to govern and whose mountainous terrain renders it all but impossible to conquer.”

Apparently, at some point, a once useful “fight” became “useless.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Useless:

A politically convenient word to avoid admitting that something a person or a group has done or supported in the past may have been immoral but must be considered understandable and, therefore, forgivable because of its possible utility

Contextual Note

It should be pointed out that some people, whose voices were rarely cited in The New York Times, believed from the opening bell that the fight was destined to “become useless” for the simple reason that the guilty party for the attacks on September 11, 2001, was not the then-Taliban government of Afghanistan but al-Qaeda. History offers us one consistent lesson that the Afghanistan War illustrates to perfection. Parties that have reasons to believe themselves to be the innocent victims of another party’s aggression will resist that aggression with greater intent, ferocity and persistence than the party that attacks or assaults them.

In 2001, the US saw the events of 9/11 as an unprovoked, unexpected act of war that came literally out of the blue. Instead of treating it as an exceptional criminal act requiring exceptional measures of investigation and punishment of the criminals, the Bush administration answered by starting a very real, though undeclared war against another government and people, in conformity with the traditional belief that wars are a legitimate form of armed competition between states.

Embed from Getty Images

What the Taliban thought of al-Qaeda’s spectacular mission on September 11 nobody knows. It was nevertheless obvious at the time that the Afghan government had not planned it and could not have known about it. The Taliban and the vast majority of the Afghan population, therefore, felt themselves to be innocent and undeserving of the all-out war on their government and people by the amassed forces of the West. They were further appalled by the new foreign occupation that followed in its wake. Enduring resistance was inevitable.

It may thus sound ironic in 2020 to hear The Times highlight what it sees as the one clearly positive condition of the peace deal: “The major achievement for the United States was assurances that the Taliban would not give sanctuary to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.” Had the Bush administration focused on mobilizing the international community to force Afghanistan’s Taliban government to end the sanctuary given to Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda at the time, war could have been avoided.

This wouldn’t have been easy. It would have required patience, careful coordination, a targeted strategic military threat and a true attempt at respecting the West’s own vaunted “rule of law.” But it would have had the benefit of logical consistency and legality. Moreover, it would have saved trillions of dollars to say nothing of tens of thousands of lives. It also would have avoided the worst consequence for the US of all the events that followed: the perception by a vast majority of people in the Muslim world today that the US is a totally cynical enemy of the entire region and the peoples that inhabit it.

The NYT’s editorial board makes what could be seen as a surprising admission of durable ignorance with this observation: “The full futility of that effort was revealed in documents obtained by the Washington Post late last year from an investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.” Some may find it extraordinary that The Times, the nation’s richest and most powerful newspaper, described in its own columns as “a digital behemoth crowding out the competition,” had to wait 18 years for the US government to release a report before getting a sense of what was really going on in a war that its reporters were embedded in from day one. What could better illustrate the fact that, concerning foreign policy, The Times tends to function not like a newspaper dedicated to using its resources to seek the truth and inform the public, but as a megaphone for US governments?

Historical Note

The New York Times never had any doubts about the wisdom or rather the moral necessity of starting the Afghan War in 2001. The ghost of New York’s twin towers cried out for vengeance and the Gray Lady of New York joined the mob in its quest for revenge. The Times editorial on November 27, 2001, begins: “Americans should be encouraged that the early phases of the war against terrorism have gone relatively smoothly in Afghanistan, but some of the most important and difficult tasks in that nation now lie ahead.”

At a time when many observers warned that Afghanistan was already known as the “graveyard of empires,” The Times avoided grappling with the complexity of history and chose simply to offer the US administration its advice on how to move forward: “A stable, unified government must emerge from the present conflict.”

Now, in early 2020, the paper boldly affirms: “ending American involvement in the war is the right thing to do.” This is the same Editorial Board that felt getting the US into the war in 2001 and calling it a “war against terrorism” was also “the right thing to do.” The Times went further in 2003 by enthusiastically supporting the Bush administration’s even more contestable and totally unjustified invasion of Iraq. Unjustified, as we now know, but The Times dedicated an inordinate amount of column space justifying it before it even took place and thereby helping to make it inevitable.

Embed from Getty Images

This may be a propitious moment for intelligent readers of The New York Times to realize once and for all that the paper, for all its rich content, is an unreliable source for anyone seeking guidance about what is right or wrong in public policy. Perhaps, in the interest of maintaining an image of objectivity, the editorial board should quite simply impose on itself a form of self-restraint by refraining in the future from making judgments that appeal to any type of moral criteria. The Times should at all costs avoid calling actions that it reports on as right or wrong.  

That being the case, it’s worth asking a probing question: What has The Times been using as its moral criteria? From this week’s editorial, what emerges is what ethicists call its utilitarian bias. The editorial board reveals the main pillar of its reasoning in this article when it praises the merits of “recognizing when a fight has become useless is the right thing to do.” Such a statement supposes that a fight can be “useful.” This, in turn, as any philosopher would demand, should require that the proponents of such a proposition to define what they mean be useful and useless. Useful to whom and for what “use”?

Utility is a synonym for usefulness, just as futility is a synonym for uselessness. Utilitarian ethics relies on the notion of justifying as good or right what is most useful (i.e., considered good) for the greatest number. Referring to the Afghanistan Papers — a series of leaked classified documents concerning the Afghanistan War — the editorial board now calls its readers’ attention to the “full futility” of the war that became apparent thanks to the Afghanistan Papers. But there was a time at which The Times, as a utilitarian moralist, saw more utility than futility.

In an article from October 2001, the paper listed the presumably useful reasons that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited as US objectives in the attack on the Taliban. “Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that the United States was seeking to orchestrate the overthrow of the Taliban” and that “the goals of the military operation were to punish the Taliban for ‘harboring terrorists.’” He added that they sought to “acquire intelligence” for “future operations against Al Qaeda and to weaken the Taliban so severely that they will not be able to withstand an opposition assault.” And just to show that it wasn’t merely about what would be “useful” to the US, he added the goal of providing relief “to Afghans suffering truly oppressive living conditions under the Taliban regime.”

In its ethical reasoning, The New York Times has always been more impressive in its hindsight than its foresight. But is it asking too much for the public to demand that even the hindsight doesn’t have to wait 18 years to achieve any clarity?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Share Story
CategoriesAmerican News, Central & South Asia, Global Terrorism News, Insight, International Security, Islamic terrorism news, North America, Politics, US news, US politics news, War on Terror, World News TagsAfghan war, Afghanistan peace deal, Afghanistan War, Peter Isackson, Taliban peace, Taliban peace deal, US war in Afghanistan, US withdrawal Afghanistan, War in Afghanistan, Withdrawing from Afghanistan
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

Fair Observer Recommends

The Tug of War in Washington Around the War in Afghanistan The Tug of War in Washington Around the War in Afghanistan
By Peter Isackson • Sep 15, 2020
Can the Afghans Work Toward a Lasting Peace Deal? Can the Afghans Work Toward a Lasting Peace Deal?
By Obaidullah Abdulhaq • Aug 29, 2020
Can the Taliban and the Afghan Government Make Peace? Can the Taliban and the Afghan Government Make Peace?
By Hassan Fahimi • Aug 28, 2020

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious Xenophobia and Denial: Coronavirus Outbreak in Historical Context
Next PostNext Will the US-Taliban Deal Bring Peace to Afghanistan?
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept