Talibanning the FCM : Digging for nuance

Digging for nuance

[Photo: AFP / Taliban / EyePress News]

During a recent discussion with an old friend we were reflecting on the state of modern media. One of the points raised was the explosion of independent, or "new" media. The Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) refer to these people as "bloggers", which is quite an astonishing form of condescension. The emergence in such force of this "new" media tells us something; that the FCM were not meeting the desires of their audience.

The recent events in Afghanistan are dominating headlines in the FCM and new media and provide an opportunity for comparative analysis. I have selected 4 opinion pieces (one does contain some good reportage too) and offer them for comparison.

From the FCM we have opinion pieces from the New York Times, and the Washington Post by Thomas L. Friedman and Marc A. Thiessen, respectively. From the "new" media we have two published at Unz Review, one by a career journalist and wonderful writer Pepe Escobar. (His "normal" outlet is Asia Times, and has never to my knowledge regularly published at a "western" outlet). The other is Michael Hudson, an economist by training.

The comparison is of a very small sample size, and is not entirely equal. Hudson and Thiessen's pieces are pure opinion, but Escobar's contains more reportage than Friedman's.

I suggest reading the FCM pieces first, then the "new" media's, and asking yourself a few questions:

• What have I learned? Do I feel more informed?

• Have I been inspired to look into more information to gain a wider understanding? Is there nuance?

• What is the goal of the author in the piece?

FCM

Biden Could Still Be Proved Right in Afghanistan, Thomas L. Friedman, NYT, 2021-08-16

Biden is blaming everyone but himself. But he’s the one who gave the Taliban a green light., Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post, 2021-08-16

"New" media

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Back with a Bang, Pepe Escobar, Unz Review, 2021-08-16

Biden Forfeits His Afghan Victory by Defending His Deep State Advisors, Michael Hudson, Unz Review, 2021-08-16

Answering My non-Rhetorical Questions

I look at these pieces, from an opinion perspective, as advancing narratives. The FCM narratives differ a little, but hold a common line.

Friedman:

For the last 20 years, America tried to defend itself from terrorism emanating from Afghanistan by trying to nurture it to stability and prosperity through the promotion of gender pluralism, religious pluralism, education pluralism, media pluralism and, ultimately, political pluralism.

Thiessen:

On Sep. 11, 2001, Americans literally fell from the sky — jumping from the top floors of the World Trade Center to escape the fires set by al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that aided and abetted them. Today, almost two decades later, it is our Afghan allies who are falling from the sky — after clinging to the fuselage of a U.S. military aircraft taking off from the Kabul airport, in a desperate effort to escape the Taliban regime.

Both refer back to the crimes of 9/11 and assert that Afghanistan was somehow involved in these crimes. Thus, Afghanistan deserves to be invaded and bombed, and have an installed government imposed upon it. So, that gives Iraq the justification to invade the USA and install their puppet government, right? Surely, blowing up a few buildings and killing 3 000 people in a day is a lesser crime than creating a sectarian civil war and killing a 1 000 000 people in over a decade?

For the second question, it is answered equally by the above. There is very little nuance to any of it. It does not ask new or interesting questions but merely conforms to established narratives. Thus, the objectives are also clear, sell a piece for a paper, and do not cross any established narrative red-lines.

Conversely, lets look at Escobar and Husdon, starting with Pepe:

It’s impossible to understand the Taliban – and most of all, the Pashtun universe – without understanding Pashtunwali. As well as the concepts of honor, hospitality and inevitable revenge for any wrongdoing, the concept of freedom implies no Pashtun is inclined to be ordered by a central state authority – in this case, Kabul. And no way will they ever surrender their guns.

In a nutshell, that’s the “secret” of the lightning-fast blitzkrieg with minimal loss of blood, inbuilt in the overarching geopolitical earthquake. After Vietnam, this is the second Global South protagonist showing the whole world how an empire can be defeated by a peasant guerrilla army.

Why did the USA/NATO fail? They dont understand the culture. Escobar has the advantage here, he has actually toured Afghanistan multiple times. He draws the Viet Nam parallel not with helicopters over embassies but by peasant guerrilla armies. I am certain that Pepe has met some of the Taliban political leadership, and think it likely that he’s met some of their soldiers too.

Michael writes:

Hardly anyone asks how the U.S. ever got in. Jimmy Carter was suckered by the Polish Russia-hater Brzezinski and created Al Qaeda to act as America’s foreign legion, subsequently expanded to include ISIS and other terrorist armies against countries where U.S. diplomacy seeks regime change. Carter’s alternative to Soviet Communism was Wahabi fanaticism, solidifying America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia. Carter memorably said that at least these Muslims believed in God, just like Christians. But the Wahabi fundamentalism army was sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which paid for arming Al Qaeda to fight against Sunni Moslems and, early on, the Russian-backed Afghan government.

After Carter, George W. Bush and Barack Obama funded Al Qaeda (largely with the gold looted from destroying Libya) to fight for U.S. geopolitical aims and oil in Iraq and Syria. The Taliban for its part fought against Al Quaeda. The real U.S. fear therefore is not that they may back America’s Wahabi foreign legion, but that they will make a deal with Russia, China and Syria to serve as a trade link from Iran westward.

He takes the narrative back to the Mujaheddin and then forward to the current Eurasian economic integration being funded by China and facilitated by Russia.

This is why I dont read the FCM. They are plain and simply boring: no nuance, and little historical referencing outside of mainstream narratives. I actually feel sorry for them. They cant talk about interesting things because those topics are taboo.

Other Ideas

Paul Robinson publishes Irrussianality. The most recent article is his take on the causes of the US/NATO failure in Afghanistan:

Explaining Afghanistan’s Collapse, Paul Robinson, Irrussianality, 2021-08-14

James Carden from the American Committee for US-Russia Accord (founded by Stephen Cohen, RIP) has just interviewed Mr Robinson: