PBS’s Frontline has long been one of the few bastions of genuinely thoughtful television. (This is particularly true in a teevee lineup where the increasingly ironically named “History” channel runs specials concerned with lunatic apocalyptic scenarios (via) and easily disproved Hitler conspiracy theories.) Last night they ran a heavily promoted piece on Afghanistan titled “Obama’s War”. It doesn’t contain a whole lot of new information for anyone who actually keeps up with the news from Afghanistan, but it does provide a fresh look, and reminder, of just what our involvement entails.
Because we live in the future you can watch the entire thing on-line at PBS.org. The whole of it is worth your time, but if nothing else at least watch the first segment. A cameraman embedded with a Marine company – in combat – in southern Afghanistan and in what may be the most telling shot of the entire hour, a Marine, prone against an embankment, finishes firing his fully automatic machine gun and then asks “Where’s it coming from?” The joys of guerilla warfare.
A close second for “most telling shot” comes just a few minutes later as the show leaves Afghanistan for Washington D.C. by way of a simple dissolve. Through the magic of television American troops in full combat gear walking along a dusty Afghan road becomes a conference in Washington complete with officers, guys in suits and, naturally, Power Point presentations. It’s one thing to know that the rear echelon is a world apart from the actual combat, it’s quite another to see it quite so starkly.
Going to Washington is how “Obama’s War” begins to put what those Marines are doing into a larger context and it’s as decent a summary as I’ve yet seen. Confusion and buzzwords back home? Indeed. Karzai government corrupt beyond measure? Check. Election fraud of enormous proportions? Oh yeah. Pathetic little speeches from Afghan and American mandarins out in the provinces? Bingo. What are we trying to do and is there a plan? Um . . . hey look at the time! We’d better get to Pakistan.
It’s in Pakistan, and about the Pakistani connection to the Taliban, that “Obama’s War” stumbles. They interview a myriad of American and Afghani officials who are all seething (some conceal it better than others) over Pakistan’s ongoing support of Taliban militias. The Pakistani spokesman, of course, denies everything. Again, none of this is exactly new information if you’ve been following the war. But it’s here, and only here, that a simplistic conclusion is offered: oh, those darn Pakis, if only they’d stop supporting the Taliban everything might get better.
No effort is made to understand Pakistani reluctance from a Pakistani point of view. No mention is made of the fact that Pakistan itself is an ethnic polyglot with brain numbing internal political complexity. The fact that Pakistan was, prior to the 2001 attacks, one of the only governments on friendly terms with the Taliban is glossed over without explanation. Pakistan had its reasons then, and it has its reasons now, and while I’m no expert a hint at them can be summed up in one sentence: Pakistan has to live next to Afghanistan.
Before the Western invasion in 2001 the Taliban had done what no other entity had managed to do in over two decades: brought a measure of order to Afghanistan. It was a brutal, nearly medieval sort of order, but order nonetheless. The advantage for Pakistan in that is self evident. They have to live there, we do not, and, by our own admission, the Kabul government controls only 30% of the country. From a Pakistani perspective it would be irresponsible to line up wholesale with a bunch of dilettante foreigners who can pack up at any time against an organization that, while less pleasant, has proven its effectiveness and is native to the area.
Despite that imperial myopia, however, “Obama’s War” is still a very good summary of what we’re doing and trying to do in Afghanistan and well worth watching. It is television at its best, using the power of moving images to convey a story in a far more explicit way than words or even pictures can accomplish. Contrasting the endless blather from officials on all side (and the possibly insoluble mess that it describes) with the daily reality of Marines sleeping on concrete is something that cannot be done nearly so well in any other medium.
An End Note on Language: As one would expect the “fuck”s fly fast and heavy from the Marines in combat. No attempt is made to censor it. This is a good and welcome change from a few years ago when this was actually a controversy.
