History Repeating – But Who Sees it First?

Admiral Mike Mullen: “We Cannot Win From the Pentagon”


Better late than never! Even though critical and well-founded voices were heard in the early stages in the United States and NATO countries concerning the political and military leaderships’ approach in Iraq and Afghanistan, those voices did not receive enough attention. It is history repeating itself, and everybody knowing very little about the past in Afghanistan and about the cultural and religious environment will know that efforts to truly interact with the people of the country have only scratched the surface of what is possible and necessary.

It is not only a matter of understanding the regional history and culture, but also of accepting it. Even though it may afford a little more time, the greatest progress in Afghanistan generally has been made when the Allied nations approached the leadership and the people of the country with tolerance and in accord with the regional traditions and basic cultural rules. The stigma of the western colonial past is still very much present in the reluctance of many countries of the region to follow another country’s examples and regulations or even to accept its help if this would unsettle the traditional structures. And it is well-known that in Muslim countries this reluctance reaches as far back as to mediaeval times, respectively to the crusades – in fact the local press willingly picks up this motive to express the people’s anger about any more or less comparable appearance of western countries.

One of history’s best and most enigmatic examples of the clash of cultures in a conflict, as well as for the various problems and opportunities of co-operation, has been Tomas Edward Lawrence’s account of his involvement in the Arab uprising against the Ottoman rule in his formidable “Seven Pillars of Wisdom.” And though Afghanistan cannot be compared to the Hejaz region of 1917, it is the principle of and the requirements for effective inter-cultural co-operation and understanding that make those experiences most important for today’s challenges in the Middle East.

Mullen: “We are still learning about the various cultures”

It is to this great person of history, known to most as “Lawrence of Arabia,” that the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, made reference to in a speech at The American Legion on Tuesday. And it is by correctly applying this unique example that Mullen outlined how trust and a partnership borne of understanding – not simply military might – is what is needed to quell conflicts and establish rules of law in troubled regions of the Middle East.

“Despite all that's been done to bring stability to that region, really since the end of World War I,” said Admiral Mike Mullen, “we are still learning about the various cultures that shape the region's landscape. Because understanding takes time and without consistent engagement - a willingness to see things from another's perspective - there will always be a trust deficit. And where trust is lacking, partnerships falter.”

Mullen cited the example of British officer Lawrence as one of enlightened leadership during the so-called Arab Revolt. “During World War I, (he) and a few others committed themselves to learning the customs, the languages and the cultures of the people of the Middle East. They fought beside them; earned their friendship. But, most importantly, they won their trust.”

“We cannot win from the Pentagon” – or from anywhere else outside the region

This principle of combining a strong military force with cultural sensitivity applies equally to today's conflicts centred on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mullen said. In his words, “We cannot win from the Pentagon.” He further explained, “You have to be there, you have to see and hear firsthand what the issues are. You can't hope to see problems through someone else's eyes if you aren't looking into those eyes.”

But what is more important for any future strategy adopted to bring peace and stability to the region is that the fact has to be accepted that the cultural and political ‘comforts’ of western countries must not necessarily be the best solution for Middle East countries. It is not a matter of progress, as progress in large historical dimensions is not always something that has been brought to humanity deliberately. The recent presidential elections in Afghanistan clearly show that, first, the country is not yet ready for democracy and, second, that the path to anything near stability in Afghanistan is still longer than anyone may anticipate at the moment.

Let’s hope that the few voices of today will be heard by the political leadership to finally establish an elaborate long-term strategy for what Afghanistan should really look like in the future and by what means this is to be achieved. I, for my part, have not seen any strategy paper which really addresses the current problems of Afghanistan with the acceptance of actual historical, cultural and religious facts that need to be dealt with unconditionally. Should anyone have one ready in his drawer, please let me know.

(This entry is an OpEd that I originally wrote for the defence news site defpro.com in August 2009)