Title: Between
the Bear and the Lioness
Author: Hanan Habibzai
Date: 2021
Publisher: Book Trail Agency
ISBN: 978-1-63767-351-5 (for the e-book, which is
what I received for review); 978-1-63767-350-8 (for the paperback book)
Length: 282 e-pages
Quote: “The Taliban are mostly rural and they have
a lot of support because they are simple, don’t have any special uniforms, and
don’t ask anyone for food. Whoever brings anything, they eat it. They do not
take bribes, are not involved in corruption, and do not have big bungalows.
They do not drive in armoured vehicles. They walk like other poor villagers.
This has helped them to gain the support of the people. Because there is not
much distance between them and the people. If you compare government officials
with poor Afghans, there is a huge economic and social gap between them.
Expensive dresses, expensive cars, and lascivious body gardens, all in
Hollywood style. Hand in hand; gun point towards people. They have surrounded
these officials and discusses money, buildings, business, and modern life.”
When I was invited to pick a recent e-book to
review I vacillated over this one. My web site needs U.S. readers. We have
Asian readers, which is nice, we like them, but our U.S. sponsors (such as they
are) want U.S. readers. I have consciously tried to engage with a mix of ethnic
groups and political viewpoints but most of our U.S. readers are, in any case,
middle-aged women. (This probably won’t change.) What did my American women
readers want to read next? Another Asian book or something about these United
States? Hanan Habibzai happened to reply to a tweet from me before the U.S.
writer did, and I’m glad that he did.
This collection of essays and reportage
was put together in aid of charitable organizations in Afghanistan. It’s a
must-read for Americans who have harshly criticized the Biden Administration
for withdrawing our armed forces from Afghanistan. “Turn them back over to the
loathsome Taliban, now? Whyyyy?” my
readers and I asked, and those readers who do comment on foreign policy typed
things that must have scorched their keyboards. Well...I don’t do foreign policy...in
any case, Habibzai is here to tell us why.
The title of this book tactfully reflects the
concerns of Afghans caught between the symbols of power in empire-building
nations, the Russian bear and the British lion, without mentioning the American
eagle. The U.S.-backed government was also seen as greedy, feudal, and
oppressive. The price of rice, and wheat and school supplies and whatever else,
exceeded the people’s ability to pay. The current generation of Afghans felt
the need for a change of régimes. Their collective memory is short, we drily
observe, and Habibzai explains that, too. Forty years of warfare and poverty
have not left a lot of elders to remind people of the abuses of the Taliban led
by Mullah Omar. Though still evidently very repressive toward women and ethnic
minorities today’s Taliban is a new generation—one that has studied practical
politics.
If you’ve known Afghans who were able to come to a
more fortunate country, you probably like them, and so this book is not
pleasant to read. These people have a culture very different from U.S.
Protestants but they are easy to like. Habibzai writes the way they talk, in
fluent English that breaks back down to a foreign kind of grammar in moments of
stress. A party that literally stood “hand in hand; gun point towards people”
would be in an awkward position, easy to disarm and overthrow, but we know what
the idioms mean. Nobody should have to go through what these people have been
going through during my lifetime. It reminds one of the Southern States in my
great-grandparents’ time, just before, during, and long after the Civil War:
“The Yanks took our corn and the Rebs took our cotton; the banks took our land,
and the tax took our home.” Everyone claims to want power to help the people
and somehow the people feel that everyone just wants to take. Omar’s Taliban did some taking too but, after twenty years of
poverty with U.S. “help,” the living—who are mostly young—think the current
generation of Taliban might not be so bad, so
far. Give them time...
Habibzai documents what American readers
(including Canadians, and also British and Australian readers) might have
feared would happen when the U.S. went into Afghanistan. Despite the genuine
good will of U.S. citizens a top-down approach from Big Government did not make
life much better for many people. We helped an allegedly democratic U.S.-style
government gain power. Afghans did not experience this government as actually
being as democratic as we hoped it would be. Habibzai claims that “you can’t
find a hospital” Americans built and left to Afghan people to operate. Families
like his, who fled to Pakistan and lived as refugees during the Russian
invasion, have been able to trickle back to their homes but still don’t feel
secure there. A large sector of the economy consists of teenagers who are doing
the real work because the people who ought to be teaching and supervising them
aren’t there. Afghanistan is still a very unhealthy place to live; people who
live to be as “old” as thirty or forty are likely to be living as refugees in
other countries.
A U.S. soldier ran amok and killed Afghan people.
“But not as part of a policy of tyranny! He had a mental illness. He would have been just as dangerous to other
Americans if he’d been at home.” (This is true. People whose Prozac Dementia
leads to homicide-suicide seem to want to kill as many people as they can, and
some have managed to take more than nineteen lives out along with their own.) Affluent
Americans have developed the idea that verbal apologies are all that is
necessary when people have been injured or killed accidentally, or while
someone was insane. “All human laws” around the world have always recognized
that, if the victim’s family happen not to be affluent, verbal apologies alone
are mockery. When other people depended on the victim’s work or income, in
order for claims of good intentions to be accepted, the homicide or those
accepting responsibility for him or her should try to compensate the bereaved
family. This is still unsatisfactory, because it makes no provision for “feelings”
or the desire to believe that all people should have equal value. U.S. readers
shouldn’t have to have this spelled out for them; old British and Biblical laws
used to set standard amounts for what the English used to call wergild
payments, but “wergild” seems like a foreign word for many U.S. students.
In Afghanistan, while the Taliban were poor and
out of power, the U.S. “peacekeepers” were not even culturally prepared to help
poor families with funerals, much less surviving bereavement. “Outside Kabul,
mostly in the south and the east of the country, enough instances exist which
contribute to the Taliban propaganda campaign. The US–led foreign airstrikes
have killed thousands of civilians across the country since
2001. In the aftermath of those attacks, there is no high-profile government
official or any foreign official to show immediate sympathy and help the
remnants, but Taliban and the Imams are already there. They are there to serve
and bury the dead bodies according to Islamic principles. They are there to
recite the Quran and pray for the success of Islam and those who lost their
loved ones.” Even if this was an utterly coldblooded (and tribalistic) bid for
emotional sympathy, one can imagine how effective it would have been.
“Peacekeepers” did not know the reason why people were gathering. In some cases hypervigilant U.S. troops might have been sincerely trying to stop a Taliban
rally before it started; the men visiting a house might even have been
talking of their pro-Taliban feelings, for all that will ever be known, but in
any case, when the house was blown up, the casualties included women and children gathering for a wedding or some such family celebration. A general policy favoring education and
employment for women can be mistaken, after a mistake of this magnitude, for a
scheme to lure women and children out into the streets where they can be murdered. Americans
may think “But of course nobody could misunderstand us in such appalling ways,
good lord, what sort of person would
even think...?!” Habibzai testifies that the Taliban could and did
misunderstand us in exactly those ways.
Habibzai gives an Afghan perspective on events
from recent Afghan history that were reported in newspapers like the Washington Post or New York Times. Typical U.S. readers who didn’t follow
those stories can look them up at the archives of major newspapers. Most reports
from after 2000 are available online. We the people of the United States rather
passively helped Hamid Karzai become the head of his state. He was mortal and
fallible. Because he was supported by the U.S. he could be seen as a puppet
governor, thus presumed corrupt and feeble; and, by those who chose to restore
the Taliban to power, he was seen that way.
We feel that Taliban notions of shariah justice are likely to kill more
Afghan people than U.S. troops among whom one soldier happens to become insane. So do some Afghan people who disagree with the Taliban. Nevertheless, young Afghans see today’s Taliban as at least living by their cultural
rules of modesty, frugality in hard times and presumably generosity in better
times. “Lascivious body gardens” are part of Afghan culture—historically people
had farms, and those who could afford it cultivated pretty flower gardens just
for pleasure—but government officials might have done better to focus on
helping private citizens rebuild their homes before they built flower gardens
in which to entertain foreigners.
We have had
something like this in U.S. history. Habibzai observes that “Afghanistan is introduced to the
world as a horrible country.” What was reported, even what was fairly and
accurately reported, after our own Civil War was driving many of our ancestors to the
“Wild” West as our Southern States were (accurately) portrayed as a disaster
area and our Northern States as a place of triumphant greed, abuse, and
bigotry. In the South ex-slaves who were still poor were spouting revenge, the Ku Klux Klan
was terrorizing the ex-slaves, nobody ate well, all valuables including food
were likely to be stolen and wasted, any education that took place was
haphazard, land was ruined, and disease germs were proliferating in preparation
for the plague years in the early twentieth century. In the North some business
tycoons lured in immigrants, from the South and from Europe, and others hated
and persecuted them. We were a
horrible country, a place where intertribal bickering threatened to destroy
beautiful land. Only God could have saved us. Only God can save Afghanistan
now, I believe, and their best hope is that they are people of faith. They have
some misbeliefs that have contributed to their current disaster conditions. If
they sincerely pray for guidance to correct the misbeliefs and clean up the
mess, they will receive it, but real improvement may take a long time. In our
Southern States very few ex-slaves, ex-slavemasters, or Confederate veterans
lived to see either economic recovery or recovery from the plagues.
“Women rights, democracy, human rights, and
political stability are the constant battle cry of the invaders. But ordinary
Afghans’ appreciation of such gifts is tempered by heavy bombs.” A top-down
federal government attempt at “reconstruction” did more harm than good after
our Civil War. In some ways, at least, similar effects were observed in
Afghanistan. People who came to Afghanistan on humanitarian missions did some
good and were liked, and troops were needed to protect them, but is the military model of operations really suited to helping?
Another parallel with the United States in the
late nineteenth centuries is Habibzai’s claim that tribal wars, though
responsible for much of Afghanistan’s trouble, are being fed and exploited by
foreign interests. Europeans who wanted to see American Democracy fail funded
both sides of our Civil War, just as, before that, European immigrants had
deliberately tried to aggravate conflicts among different groups of Native
Americans. The Soviets apparently looked for trouble when they claimed they
wanted to liberate Afghan “minority” tribes from the dominance of Pashtun
tribesmen. Pashtun people were persecuted as having been rich oppressors,
whether they were or not. The conflicts grew as chaos and poverty increased, so
the end result is a nation of desperate, barely literate young men (and boys)
squabbling over scraps, invoking old tribal hostilities when their grandfathers
were able to work and trade together in peace. It’s a bad situation that
Americans ought to be able to relate to.
(Full disclosure: Habibzai is a descendant of an
old Pashtun landowning family. My Indian foster brother’s family traced their
male-line descent to the Moguls, but Pashto was commonly
spoken in their part of India and they claimed Pashtun cousins.
Habibzai is not writing as a tribalist and I hardly know one Afghan ethnic
group from another but there is some possibility of bias simply from exposure,
in both book and review.)
Even charitable outsiders, as everywhere, come in
and demonstrate cluelessness. Poor people in ruined cities, Habibzai says,
would be satisfied with bread and water, but relief workers think they need
chicken and rice. Afghans have traditionally liked chicken and rice, or lamb
and rice, etc., well seasoned and scooped up on bits of naan bread, but in a burnt-out city cooking meat and rice can be
problematic. Fuel needs to be saved for cold weather, and cooking on a small,
frugal open fire in cold weather is a long difficult process. Storing cooked
meat is even more difficult. Sanitation is a problem even when people choose to
go vegan. They don’t have electricity, they don’t have water-flush toilets, and
they certainly don’t have refrigerators. Bread made from wheat grown in the United States, or
anywhere else where wheat farmers “protect their crops” with glyphosate, is
toxic waste but people who don’t actually lose blood immediately after eating
it are likely to feel that bread is safer than chicken and rice would be, for
them. People who are already weak from other infections, malnutrition, and the
emotional turmoil a doctor cited in the book mentions, have died from
salmonella.
The chapters on Afghan popular culture may be
obscure or off-putting to U.S. readers but they shed light on this country. All
Islamic cultures value education, science, poetry, but fear of religious
corruption and plain old poverty often produce situations where many people
never learn to read. When people have to work to support themselves and the one
surviving disabled elder in the family, starting at age ten, they are very
unlikely to learn enough to feel confident even about teaching their children
to read, so the next generation grow up illiterate. Nevertheless they value
learning when they can get any of it, so after a hard day’s work illiterate
laborers will listen to poetry readings or scientific discussions. Their
understanding may be limited, and the science may be garbled and the poetry may
be bad, but they are keen lifelong learners, like early Anglo-Americans or
medieval Jews. Though currently very poor, they have a rich culture that should
not be swept away by well-meaning people wanting to offer everyone a “global,”
English-based or perhaps Chinese-based “education.” They need the chance to
educate themselves and build up their contributions to the world’s knowledge
and culture in their own way.
Habibzai’s motive is of course to call attention
to how long the hard times have gone on in Afghanistan, to encourage anyone
feeling munificent to send money to charitable organizations, like his, to help
the people. And how selective is their help likely to be? First the relief
workers eat steak, then they hand out rice and aspirin to other people?
“Medical school for as many of my fifteen children as can keep up
with the work, and at least a third
grade education for other children”? Child. That is what we call Human Nature.
U.S., U.K., and U.N. aid enabled it too, greedheads in Kabul rebuilding colorful “palaces”
before they even considered putting roofs on what was left of neighbors’
houses, and of course both U.S. and Soviet “helpers” were distrusted because
they didn’t live by the local cultural rules. As Greg Mortenson observed about
twenty years ago, when local people are doing the humanitarian work they’re likely to be less
resented and less distrusted because at least they’re doing their selective
helping by the local rules.
The Taliban have historically resented and distrusted the United States, and may (again) vent their feelings on individuals we might try to help unless aid is delivered by trusted local men. How far this trust should go, this web site cannot say...but let all people of faith pray for the Afghan people. They needed prayers before; they will need them more now.
