Afghanistan - A War For No Purpose?

It's difficult in a war situation to define success but Gordon Brown today has declared that the recent shocking 15 deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan in just 10 days as 'progress'.

One thing I would like to make clear - the incredible bravery and hard work of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan is beyond reproach. We have the most professional and best people in the world fighting on our behalf and I do not think there is not a person in Britain who is not proud and awed by the sacrifices they make daily.

It is the Politicians who should be getting the criticism. History has told us that even modern armies have struggled in this rugged land and the might of the Soviet Forces in the 80s could not control Afghanistan and today the combined Allied Forces cannot control large tracts of territory amidst ever bloodier fighting. In 8 long years, little has been achieved beyond the seizure of the capital, Kabul and Helmand province remains an unconquered and dangerous territory where British Forces are getting killed at an ever increasing pace.

The Argument Against

Ostensibly, the enemy in Afghanistan is the ultra-hard Muslim sect, the Taliban. They are the ones who throw acid into women's faces and implement a hard regime based around the most fanatical interpretation of the Koran. It was they who originally harboured Osama Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda terrorist network and allowed them to train and operate from a safe haven. It is alleged that the Taliban fund themselves through the drugs market and at one point it was estimated that over half the world's poppy supply for illegal drugs came from Afghanistan. Indeed, one of the outcomes of this war, Tony Blair told us, was that we would be able to decrease the amount of drugs on the streets of Britain. That, like many other stupid promises about Afghanistan, was utter rubbish and the supply, by all estimates, has actually increased since the Allies moved in.

Anti War protesters would point to the fact that the Taliban is pretty much a sect and has occupied Afghanistan as a place to have its religious life. As a regime, it has no real foreign policy, according to author James Ferguson, and it is claimed that Al Qaeda has effectively left Afghanistan and taken up residence in Pakistan.

The Argument For

The clear argument is that Afghanistan is a potential conveyor belt for terrorist recruitment and training, While the Taliban themselves may not have a foreign policy, they allow the likes of Al Qaeda to operate training camps and schools which develop terrorist convictions and skills, so allowing them to send the finished articles to Western lands to bring terror and bloodshed. It is also claimed that many of the 7/7 bombers were trained in Afghanistan and controlled by people from there.

This makes the war we are fighting critical if we want to stop terrorism, we are told.

What Does Not Make Sense

The invasion of Afghanistan by US Forces following the terrible day on 9/11 was swift and decisive. The world, having digested the event and been directed to the lineage of terror that led to Bin Ladin and Afghanistan, supported the move - Britain was 'shoulder to shoulder' as Blair famously pronounced. In 8 years, we have come no closer to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda still remains pretty much intact, causing atrocities on a sporadic but devastating basis and all intelligence points toward a world with a vastly increased state of emergency due to terrorist threats.

The real rattlers nest came on the invasion of Iraq. There were no Taliban there, no connections to Bin Ladin or 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction, just a regime and dictator who were spent forces in world politics and threats, although Saddam Hussein was still a major threat to his won people. What Iraq did was to open up a front where any enemy with a gripe against the West could go along and train on the job, have a glorious career in the eyes of their peers and take out a few Allied Forces in the process. But more than anything, it served to 'up the ante' in the age-old struggle of Christians vs. Muslims.

If there can be any doubt about this, just look to the pious nature of the two leaders involved - Tony Blair and George W Bush. Blair now leads a 'Faith Tour' while Bush made no attempt to hide that God was on his side.

What both wars have shown was the lack of preparation and understanding of the enemy, the history, and the terrain. There seemed to be no real game plan, no real strategy and no clear 'end game' which would indicate when a war was actually won or lost and what the outcome would look like. 8 years on and Afghanistan is still a powder keg and very little real progress has been made.

In a bizarre twist, in the 80s it was the likes of the SAS who worked alongside the very people we fight today to helped them harry the Russians, just as Rumsfeld famously shook Saddam's hand to supply him with weapons in his war against Iran. Politics through the ages has changed with the wind and double talk and hypocrisy has been pretty much the norm. Things have changed little since over thousands of years when it comes to wars and agendas.

So we pretty much reap what we sow. Young kids and their officers are dying daily in Afghanistan and we struggle to understand why. In 8 years we have got no closer to capturing Bin Ladin or stopping Al Qaeda carry out dreadful deeds.

How will it all come to and end? When can our brave soldiers come home?

There is a theory that such wars are a necessary convenience. Much like the 'Wag The Dog' scenario, wars divert attention and show that we are doing something. We, the public, are far too stupid to understand why wars are required, if indeed they are. Information can be carefully controlled and whenever there is the slightest real criticism on intentions, tracks are covered by invoking 'necessary secrecy' like vetoing the publishing of the minutes of Cabinet prior to the decision to go to war with Iraq. Or the sham Public Inquiries we have had, and yet to have, on Iraq.

There is always the danger, however, that what the Government is doing is the right thing. Although history tells us that no foreign power since Genghis Khan has ruled Afghanistan to any effect, we still seem to think we can conquer an almost indomitable people and, in attempting to do so, we only harden the resolve of everyday Muslims to support things which are indeed against their nature and their religion.

We can all point to parts of the Koran and Bible that promote war and revenge but ultimately we have to trust ourselves. At some point we are going to have to live with one another on this earth. We had better get used to the idea.

The Religious Species

It is a peculiar thing but, to our knowledge, humans are the only species on Earth and, in so far of our knowledge to date, the Universe that has the concept of Religion and God(s).

It's a particular thing to consider at the moment because, as with the Great Depression of 1929, more people are turning to their religion in tougher times and it is very curious as to why we would do that. What is it about religion that will give us the solutions to our financial or personal worries that could not be better tackled by our bank managers or psychologists if that were the case?

A staggering 84% of the population of Earth has a religion of some sort with Christianity occupying the largest share by percentage of humans while Islam is a close second. It could be argued that it is the particular differentiator within humans that gives us the power of deductive reasoning that gives us the such concepts - it comes with our intelligence.

Is that so? In the evolutionary cycle that suggests the fittest survive, it would be illogical to think a species with the concept of an afterlife would be favoured. After all, it gives little help in surviving today. So deductive reasoning would suggest we should not adhere to an afterlife concept as it does not help us increase our chances of survival today - and I am not being cynical here in terms of our quasi-religious wars or terrorism, just plain evolutionary terms. Of course, there is much in the preachings of religions which give us templates on how to live our lives that may be of great benefit, but I am looking at it from the raw issue of why a religion would help us as a species survive.

Deductive reasoning would also suggest that if we humans have the intelligence and power to reason so well, then it would point to only one solution the problem - i.e. one religion and possibly as a result, only one God. But that is not the case. In fact there are many, many religions practiced although it is fair to say Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are adopted by a combined 60% or more of the world's population. Islam and Christianity at their source are not entirely dissimilar, but it is a feature of both religions that each are sub-divided into many distinct groups which alone often have argued their differences on a bloody scale.

But my question is why an intelligent species would adhere to fantastical concepts when simple species do not - and arguably because of their simplicity they would know no better than say to worship a stone, the sun, another species or an invisible being? Pack animals look to leaders and respect hierarchy but that is a very different concept to worshipping a non-existent being. So why does intelligence give us the power to worship something that defies logic?

Recently, a Yale Professor, Paul Bloom, has contended that religion is part and parcel of our make up just as music or culture is part of us. That may stand the scrutiny of the majority of people, but some 16% of the world's population have no religious beliefs. If Bloom's assertion was true, then those 16% of people would be abnormally functioning and incapable of adopting culture or music either but that is not the case. There must be something more to it than that.

Let me just clarify this before people leap to conclusions - I am a Christian and I pursue a Christian way of life. I believe in something we do not understand beyond the boundaries we observe today so I am as much asking the question, 'Am I stupid to do so?' as ,'What compels me to do so?'

Religion - What's It All About?

Richard Dawkins, the famous author of 'The God Delusion' suggests religion is propagated through indoctrination, particularly in children and that evolution predisposes children to take whatever their parents/elders say as the truth and so is good for their survival, a sort of 'slavish gullibility'. Some would say that many children have an innate concept of a God and over half 4 year olds have 'imaginary friends'. Further, many adults form and maintain 'relationships' with dead relatives, many will imagine relationships with fictional characters and fantasy partners. It is perhaps no surprise that many people have alter egos which can conveniently be perpetuated online in places such as Second Life or even by having multiple email or Facebook accounts. Fantasy and the adherence to fantastical people or situations are very much part of the human imagination - is perhaps religion just a human exploitation of that imagination, as Dawkins may suggest?

There is much to be said about this. I still, some 14 and 19 years after their deaths, dream almost every night about my parents. In all my life, I have been able to imagine myself as part of fantastical situations like playing rugby for Wales, playing cricket for England or even fighting a war, being a secret agent and more - almost as if I am making movies in my head starring myself. It may be 'Walter Mitty'-like in some ways but I have no illusions that these are just imaginary scenarios and I am very at ease with my own ego in real life. I know what I am capable of and live with it.

It has been shown that many people who win vast sums in the lottery or who are fabulously wealthy find that the fantasy is much more rewarding than the reality - and we see many times that famous people find it hard to cope with their situation or very wealthy people find it hard to maintain close relationships; maybe it's because they cannot believe that real people would actually love them for anything but their wealth.

It's a digression, but I think it illustrates that central to human character and intelligence comes the 'need' to imagine things which do not have a sound logical basis. So perhaps the regimented story of a religion presents something which can be taken as a fact as it satisfies a very basic human need?

What Happened To Logic?

As a person who got qualified in science, I tend to ask more about the logic of things than most. I am in Stephen Hawkings' camp who wrote in his 'A Brief History of Time' that we should explore the universe and all the amazing science it as because when we discover the underlying mechanics only then will 'We truly know the Nature of God'. That actually satisfies the balance between logic and science for me. When you look at all the incredible complexities of things such as gravity and quantum mechanics you just have to think that something beyond our comprehension created it if, even if something like 'The Big Bang' throws all religions into a spin.

We are told that 'Faith' conquers and answers all questions. Religion has been at loggerheads with science for a long while - The Inquisition harried free thinking for hundreds of years until Copernicus had the 'heretical' courage to defy the Church and say that the planets revolved around the Sun. From that moment onward, human intelligence, thinking and experimentation leaped forward and a mere 170 years ago Charles Darwin perhaps challenged religion more fundamentally when he effectively unpicked the Bible by trashing Genesis and the creation of the Earth in 7 days and man in his own image. Over time, religions have come to accommodate science and where logic and religion cannot be reconciled, 'Faith' becomes the answer to fill the gaps.

Faith is superb belief mechanism - it not only reassures an individual that something is true but equally defends the assumption against close scrutiny . The mind closes and no amount of questioning of the assumption can violate its validity. Generally that's fine. But when when world leaders can make decisions that will cost many lives because of their faith that their God will know 'Their heart was pure' then there has to be a problem. I am not debating whether the religion in such an instant was right or wrong but I would say it would have been better to have considered facts and reality rather than trusting something illogical and fantastical.

The Get Out Of Jail Card

Here perhaps is the crux of the matter. We all need mechanisms to protect ourselves beyond body armour or a safe room. I have blogged about 'Denial as a coping method' before and the subject is linked. It's the idea if something does not stand the scrutiny of logic, then faith can answer the question - even though faith in an assumption may be wrong or at least illogical. 'Faith can move mountains' we are told - but there is a difference between 'willing' a mountain to be moved and spending a large fortune to deconstruct the said mountain, transporting the constituent parts and reconstructing it somewhere else, which may or may not be achievable depending on how much you want to spend. Faith did not land men on the Moon but I dare say someone had faith in the idea it could be done.

However, someone having Faith a war was just is a different matter. It assumes that the specific religion has a higher order than the other, yet even if religions themselves could survive deductive reasoning, then the notion that two religions were meritoriously different so much so as to cause a war is entirely illogical. Much better surely to review the facts and take a more reasoned view. This is where blind faith becomes incredibly dangerous and logic needs to be the more sound basis to solve major problems.

Further, many religions in arguing a template for sensible and decent living, preach against such violence yet once more Faith can be invoked to answer the illogical situation. I do not want to get drawn on current situations but when you apply deductive reasoning to many current conflicts you find that Faith is at the heart of much of the decision making.

Humans invariably need a 'Get out of Jail card', the notion that if something appears so wrong then their 'God' will reconcile it. They would rather argue the point at the Gates of Heaven than reason their actions to a living world which tends to indicate an incapability to reason rather than intelligence which is frightening. It is seen in many cultures that having a mistress is not an issue even though the man has taken solemn vows in front of his God, some use violence to get their ways and then hop along to Church and get their sins absolved. Luther started the Protestant Movement largely on disaffection with the corruption in the Church which got as bad as rich people buying a place in Heaven much as the rich may be the only ones who can buy a place of Virgin Galactic. At least Virgin Galactic may yet be proven to actually exist.

This ability to square things away with the imaginary is a coping mechanism that is dependent on denial and is a very human trait. You have to be able to shut yourself off from the questionable morals of an outcome in order to do it. Shoot now, ask questions later. In fact the higher a person ascends, the less questions are asked as the person seems closer to the mandate handed to them by a 'God', some claim to be even guided by or had an audience with a God to mandate them. It's innately very dangerous.

Religion - It's Circuitry Thing

Some scientists have argued that religion is part of our brain's hard wiring much as language is -according to Paul Bloom at Yale. Even atheists or agnostics are prone to supernatural thoughts or watching Harry Potter, and often such people will even harbour feelings that trauma in their lives has been caused by some kind of intervention. By extrapolation, it is not that they don't believe in a God, they are just muzzling it.

Maybe religion is a lifestyle thing - a part of culture. That only 16% of the world's population do not have one just makes them 'square' and those who follow Christianity, Islam and Hinduism just follow the fashion of the times. As daft as that sounds, people born into a certain culture adopt its ways and then mixing cultures can cause people to change. Religions have evolved over time. Before Christ, the concept of a single God was pretty alien even in very sophisticated society's such as the Greeks and Romans. The adoption of Christianity came very much as a result of the Roman Empire's adoption of it and that took some hard-ball negotiating to agree how and what it would be 'sold' as.

The fact of the matter is that even modern religions are evolving to accommodate the modern world in general. But when it comes down to an issue that deductive logic would give you the answer you do not want, blind faith, carved out out reasoning devised in the Dark Ages, is used as the cornerstone of decision making.

Perhaps one day, we will all take a step back and take a long hard look at the foundations on which we make momentous decisions that can cause terrible suffering, devastation and loss of life and just think that logic derived from a bunch of war-like zealots from the era of Saladin and Richard The Lionheart is not a sound basis for decision-making in a sophisticated world capable of annihilation and sending a man to the Moon.

Surely, we have moved on.