How to Write About Afghanistan: A Style Guide for Western Journalists
(An homage to Binyavanga Wainaina.)
First, the opening. All good articles about Afghanistan start with a few lines from a poem by British imperialist poet Rudyard Kipling. You know the one, "the women come out to cut up what remains, blow out your brains, blah blah blah".
Maintain a solid grasp on British imperialist images and phrases. Don't update them in light of new events. Everything that happens in Afghanistan is a game. A Great Game, to be specific - that's what the delusional British called their destruction of the country - follow them.
Afghanistan has been repeatedly destroyed by the British and US empires, but your readers are much more interested in the soldiers from those empires who died there. You will therefore use the 19thC British imperialist term "Graveyard of Empires" or variations.
Obviously use, or refer, to the National Geogrpahic photo. But not the exploitative story of the image.
Your readers aren't knowledgeable about Afghanistan and their lack of knowledge like, well, a veil, covering an Afghan woman. You must take up this challenge and lift this veil.
Talk about the incredible hospitality of Afghans. Why, after a finite number of cups of tea you become family! Play this right and you can parlay it into a very successful business when you're done writing.
On the other hand, Afghans are tribal. Always talk about how they're tribal. Look up the ethnicities of Afghanistan (Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek) and talk about a country "riven with ethnic divisions" or a similar phrase.
If you really want to show off your knowledge, you should talk about Buzkashi. If you really really want to show off your knowledge, compare Buzkashi to Afghanistan itself! Even Rambo played Buzkashi, after all.
Like Donald Trump, your readers will be moved by the image and the fact that women used to wear skirts in Kabul. Use the image whenever possible.
Select other adjectives from this list: rugged, wind-swept, hardy, wide-eyed (referring to children), fierce (referring to independence, as in "fiercely independent", proud, suspicious of foreigners, death and destruction.
When referring to any evil or atrocity committed by the US (or British or Canadians, etc.) against Afghans, you will use words like failure, mistake, blunder, error, or (a new and good one) debacle.
Remember that like everything in the world, Afghanistan is a US possession. Show your seriousness by fretting over who lost it, whether we abandoned it, how much value it has (trillions in minerals!) how ungrateful Afghans are for not fighting for it.
Show your knowledge by dropping references to specific weaponry. You don't need to know much. Just the AK-47 (which is not a different weapon from the Kalashnikov, save yourself an awkward correction there) and the Stinger missile and you should be good.
You have many choices to source your story: Other Western journalists, Western NGO and charity workers, American veterans, other Western veterans. You obviously don't need to talk to Afghans.
If you insist on talking to Afghans remember that talking to Iranians or Pakistanis is just as good. But if you still insist on talking to Afghans you can do the taxi driver interview, and just source it as "an Afghan told me..."
You can talk about opium but don't talk about who actually runs the business or who actually makes the profits (ie., the below is not in a reputable outlet, by someone who isn't even a real journalist, and there's a reason for that).
There are detailed counts of every Westerner that died making war on Afghanistan. Use them and the highest monetary costs possible to add context for how much we have all suffered there.
Don't worry that those trillions that were spent were spent by the US military industrial complex and every dollar returned to profit of that same set of US businesses. The point is the costs were high.
As for Afghans who were killed by the US, unfortunately we don't know to the nearest ten thousand, we may not know to the nearest hundred thousand. Don't fret! Just say, at the end of a long tally, "and thousands of Afghans". Your readers are empathetic. They'll get it.
Why do orientalist writers cite Sharia, rattle off the ethnicities of Afghanistan (Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Nooristani), talk about the Pashtunwali code, and never mention Afghaniyat?
Some quotes from Nathaniel Davis 2010 paper, From Colonialism to Neo-Colonialism: Nationalism, Islam, and the Cultural Framing of Conflicts in Afghanistan.
Davis: "Dismissing the idea of Afghan nationality permitted and justified British policy in employing the familiar divide-and-conquer tactics among rival ethnic groups."
OK a massive thread with some stuff about Afghanistan and imperialism that you may not have heard despite all that you have heard. It's going to be long, I'll just say that in advance.
This thread begins with a quintessential imperialist regime change operation. In 1839. Yes, the same year Britain was committing the atrocities of the Opium War in China, it also invaded Afghanistan.
The regime change operation in Afghanistan in 1839 was written up nicely in the Afghan patriot Farukh Husain's book, Afghanistan in the Age of Empires.
Du Bois spells out the social democratic dream: " It is no longer simply the merchant prince, or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class, that is exploiting the world: it is the nation; a new democratic nation composed of united capital and labor."
Science and religion both serve imperialism:"Thus arises the astonishing doctrine of the natural inferiority of most men to the few, and the interpretation of 'Christian brotherhood' as meaning anything that one of the 'brothers' may at any time want it to mean."
Du Bois knows there are no "unimportant" regions or "backwaters": "the ownership of materials and men in the darker world is the real prize".
Just playing a quick game of Jim Gasperini's Hidden Agenda this morning.
Steering the ship of state in Chimerica is hard and this is one of the toughest dilemmas. Do I heed the Cuban Ambassador or my cautious External Affairs minister who says I should refuse military aid?
I guess I did it right because I just successfully resisted two coup attempts.
@RodericDay you would like this game. It seems to reward the most radical decisions. @BenjaminNorton it seems to be based on Nicaragua so you might like it too.
I know you don't want to hear this, but the position that you "love the Palestinian people but hate Hamas" is actually helping Israel kill the Palestinian people.
The propaganda line that "we love the people but hate whoever happens to be leading them" is the standard Israeli position (ie., Israel had the same position on the PLO back in the day, etc.).
The propaganda line "we love the people but hate their leader" is also the standard regime change position. It goes along with regime change campaigns - the US/Canada/etc. just didn't recognize the Syria election, they didn't recognize the Venezuela elections, etc.
The Anti-Empire Project is sharing tonight a resource on Anti-Palestinian Racism.
The goals are a) to recognize this as a distinct type of racism and b) to make it easy to identify when an argument or claim is based in such racism and not good faith.
Anti-Palestinian racism is distinct from Islamophobia and it is distinct from Anti-Arab Racism, despite overlap and the importance of both of those racisms.
All asymmetries of rights when discussing Israel/Palestine are symptoms of anti-Palestinian racism. Examples: