Another example of lazy stereotypes informing policy discourse. Far from being the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan was both conquered by and made the capital of a number of important dynasties, a few examples:🧵
1/ Kushans (30-350 AD): a Buddhist Greek-influenced empire that ruled over parts of Afghanistan, Central Asia, and North India from its capital at Bagram (of airbase fame) before being conquered by the Sasanians. They traded with Rome, Persia, India, Ethiopia, and China.
2/ Samanids (819-999 AD): Persian satraps of the Abbasid Caliphs. They ruled most of Afghanistan (which was then part of Khurasan province) from their capital, Bukhara. Patrons of art and science, Firdawsi began composing the great Persian epic, the Shahnameh, during their reign!
3/ Ghaznavids (977–1186 AD): A Persianised Turkic military dynasty who ruled Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Northern India from their capital, Ghazni. Also patrons of the arts, Persian literature flourished under their auspices.
4/ Gurids (1186-1215 AD): Buddhist converts to Islam who overthrew the Ghaznavids and expanded their territories. For such a short-lived dynasty, their architectural achievements are impressive. They built the towering Minaret of Jam, a UNESCO World Heritage Site!
5/ Khwarazmshahs (1077-1221) / A Persian Turkic dynasty that ruled over expansive territories in Iran, Central Asia, and Afghanistan before provoking and being annihilated by the Mongol Invasion!
6/ The Mongol Invasion of Afghanistan (1221) was especially bloody and destructive. Genghis Khan's grandson was killed besieging Bamyan. In revenge, the Mongols levelled the city and massacred its people. Herat and other major cities suffered the same fate. Millions perished.
7/ Kartids (1245-1389): A Persian dynasty who ruled Khurasan, first as Mongol vassals, then independent rulers, before Timurs conquests. They did much to rebuild after the devastation of the Mongol invasion. Their capital, Herat, was an important economic and intellectual centre.
8/ Timurids (1370-1526): Timur's son and successor Shahrukh made Herat the capital of his empire, and the city flourished into a vibrant centre of culture and learning. I recently did a thread on this!
9/ Post-1526, Afghanistan was part of the Safavid, Uzbek, and Mughal empires, and the modern era has brought new challenges. But, as you can see, it has *never* been "primitive" or a "graveyard of empires," so let's stop using the past to excuse the failures of the present! /END
Sources for images: Wikipedia and the David Museum Collection (davidmus.dk).
1/ WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN: People often describe the Taliban as “medieval” because of (among other things) how they treat women, as they imagine this reflects the status of women in pre-modern Islamic society. History, however, tells a different story!🧵⬇️
2/ Contrary to the image often given of women being oppressed and secluded in “traditional” Muslim societies, many pre-modern Afghan women were well-educated and active participants in the cultural and intellectual life of cities. Here are some examples from 15th C Timurid Herat:
3/ Queen Gawharshad (d. 1457) was the wife of the Timurid ruler Shahrukh (d. 1447). She ruled the empire after his death and was a great patron of architectural projects, including the important al-Rida shrine at Mashhad (images):
1/ Pleased to see @throughlineNPR taking a new approach to presenting the history of Afghanistan, but also puzzled to see their Twitter (though not the episode itself, thankfully!) perpetuating the false narrative that “outsiders” “always failed” to invade it.
2/ Firstly, “Outsiders” suggests 🇦🇫 was historically isolated from the rest of the world, when the opposite was true. Owing to its strategic location between Iran, Central Asia, and India, it was a thriving nexus of trade and culture. Both conquered by and home to many empires:
3/ Secondly, “Always failed” - as you can see, they didn’t (even modern cases of Britain and Russia aren’t so straightforward). More than that though, this narrative is problematic because it leads to the conclusion that 🇦🇫 is innately ungovernable, see: ajammc.com/2021/08/24/sto…
Love that @thetimes has bookended the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan with two sensationally misleading graphics:“Bin Laden’s Mountain Fortress” (2001) and “Taliban’s New Arsenal” (2021)
The story behind the 2001 graphic gets better! It used during Donald Rumsfeld's interview with @nbc's Meet the Press on 2nd December 2001, and he said: "This is serious business. And there's not one of those. There are many of those." Did we ever find one of these?
1/ I’m genuinely surprised by some of the voices I see parroting offensive clichés portraying Afghanistan 🇦🇫 as innately and uniquely ungovernable (aka “the graveyard of empires”) as if they were bits of timeless wisdom. What’s wrong with them? Glad you asked! 🧵
2/ These stereotypes are problematic because they identify 🇦🇫 and its people as the source of the problem, rather than the powers that invaded it: That US-led efforts failed not because we supported a corrupt government or bombed civilians, but because of Afghanistan itself.
3/ This is because they imply that Afghanistan is *naturally* conflict-ridden and backwards. Therefore, the present outcome was unavoidable! Which, perversely, blames the Afghan people for their own misery while cynically eliding the role played by the US and allies.
1/ This op-ed by @RepAuchincloss offers a prime example of how the “graveyard of empires” cliché obscures analysis. It is presented as fact, w/out elaboration, to evade a question: “it was never going to be easy” to leave, so we don’t need to ask *why* it wasn’t easy! 🧵
2/ The root cause of our failure is identified not as any US actions or policies over the last 20 yrs but as an imagined innate character of Afghanistan 🇦🇫 and Afghans. Our only fault is failing to foresee “the speed of… the collapse of Afghan willpower.” Sound familiar?
3/ This cliché is so widespread because it is so useful. There’s nothing it can’t account for: From the chaos at Kabul Airport to the failure of a 20-yr occupation! However it’s also utterly *incorrect*, as this article I wrote for @AjamMC explains:
A GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES? With the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan🇦🇫and the resurgence of the Taliban, analysts and journalists have been using this phrase to describe the country. But what does it mean, where did it come from, and why is it wrong? 🧵 1/
This phrase first appeared in relation to Afghanistan in a 2001 article in @ForeignAffairs by Milton Bearden titled 'Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires,' which cautioned against U.S. adventurism there based chiefly on the previous experience of the Soviets and the British 2/
but also of Alexander, Genghis Khan, and the Mughals, all of whom "eventually ran into trouble in their encounters with the unruly Afghan tribals." In short, Afghanistan was seen as innately unconquerable and ungovernable because of its "unruly" people and unforgiving terrain. 3/