WAR & RUMORS OF WAR: I'm always surprised by the people who stumble across my humble blog. The latest is British journalist Brendan O'Neill of the excellent journal "Spiked-Online." (If you're unaware of it, it's one of the Recommended links on Arts and Letters Daily.) He sent me links to a couple of well-researched articles he's written "raising awkward questions about the war on terror," as O'Neill puts it.

The first is titled "When Nation-Building Destroys." Citing more than 40 news sources spanning the time frame of January-March, it points out huge contradictions between America's stated aims in a post-Taliban Afghanistan and the ways those policies are actually being implemented (or not implemented). Here's a relevant quote:

So what is the state of post-Taliban Afghanistan? Is it a human rights triumph where freedoms have been regained, or just a mess? A security nightmare that needs heavy policing, or a state with some non-threatening security issues? One thing is certain: the Bush administration's contradictory statements about Afghanistan over the past two months show that US policy is driven less by concern for democracy and human rights, than by political expediency.

O'Neill places great blame on the U.S. for instituting a government that emphasizes ethnic differences. He also includes this line about one of the most evil regimes the world has seen in recent history:

Whatever else the Taliban did, it at least brought a measure of stability to Afghanistan.

Needless to say, I disagree with most of this. To me, it seems that America's mission in Afghanistan was not nation-building. It was the removal of the Taliban, followed by some assistance in the establishment of an interim government. It's unfortunate that ethnicity seems to be the operating principle of Afghan society, but that's certainly not uncommon in the undeveloped world. It would take decades to implement the kind of change required to de-emphasize ethnicity in Afghanistan; it's been torn by these conflicts for centuries. And what if America did try to force a non-ethnic-based government on Afghanistan? That would surely be prima facie evidence of arrogant cultural imperialism, wouldn't it?

The next article, "The Strange Battle of Shah-i-Kot," again points out contradictions between what the U.S. military reported about Operation Anaconda and what the media reported. Again, O'Neill did his research: he cites 35 sources for his story (and not all from "The Guardian.") And again, I disagree with many of his assertions. It's true the U.S. military is heavily managing the flow of information from Afghanistan, but other reasons for the many contradictory reports on Operation Anaconda could be competing agendas between American forces and their Afghan compatriots( who seem to be largely motivated by tribal prejudices and may be eager to "spin" the news to their advantage) and the general "fog of war," where the initial report is often wrong. One thing is certain: even though it's unclear how many Al-Qaeda were killed in the operation, the fact is that the terrorist network no longer runs Afghanistan. At the very least, they've been forced to go into hiding or flee the country. It may not be a comprehensive victory, but it's better than doing nothing at all. After all, as the Bush administration has stated over and over again, this is going to be a long conflict that may take years to resolve.

I wish I had more time to examine each of the sources O'Neill cites, but I'm preparing to go out of town. Maybe someone out there with more time on their hands can address these stories in more detail.