Photo: Afghan National Army soldiers, right, and United States Marines from Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Regiment, 2nd MEB, left, stand at attention during the playing of the Afghan national anthem at a flag raising ceremony of the new combat outpost in the village of Dahaneh Friday, Aug. 14, 2009 in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. The ANA will occupy the outpost. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)


At a certain point in every imperial occupation, the occupier becomes frustrated with their lackeys. The imperialist will moan:

"Why can't they fight their own war?"
"Why won't they help themselves?"
"When will they take responsibility for their own country?"
"When will they stand up so we can stand down?"

The amnesia required to ask these questions would be startling if it weren't so common. The logic involves forgetting that the occupying forces overthrew the existing government and installed a puppet regime. The imperialist must convince themselves that their use of military force is actually part of a civilizing mission. It is only in this way that one can imagine that the subjects of occupation actually want to fight for the occupier and their puppet government. At this point the occupier assumes the role of a parent offering some tough love to a spineless son.

Very rarely does the occupier ask more fundamental questions:

"Why should they fight to achieve the objectives we set out?"
"Why don't we pay them the exact same salary that we pay our own soldiers?"
"Why don't we completely integrate their forces and ours?"
"Why don't we let their officers command our soldiers?"

To answer such questions honestly, one would need to admit that imperialism is at the heart of the Occupation.

At other times, the imperial frustration hinges on the assumption of native barbarism. In this scenario, the occupied subject is inhibited from their natural instinct to fight by foreign methods and training. The imperialist will argue that the native will actually fight more effectively, as they have for decades or centuries, if we just get out of the way. The critique here shifts slightly from paternalistic condescension to a Machiavellian manipulation of the political economy of violence. The objective also switches from the creation of "modern and professional" army to a desperate struggle to defeat the insurgency. Nevertheless, the fundamental question as to why these subjects should fight to impose our vision remains unasked and unanswered.

Labels: afghanistan, imperialism, nato, security, south asia, us