The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War by Craig Whitlock
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The Curse of American Idealism

Craig Whitlock is an outstanding journalist. He has done something remarkable in this book by bringing together first person reports from soldiers, administrators, and politicians about US involvement in Afghanistan since 2001. The material he has gathered from a number of little known archives describes 20 years of error, misconception, and deceit throughout the military, the government, and in communication to the public and the world.

The most disturbing aspect of Whitlock’s reporting, however, is that the American experience in Afghanistan appears virtually identical to its experience in VietNam and to the previous Russian experience in Afghanistan which the Americans had sworn to avoid.* But like a good journalist, Whitlock sticks to the facts - who screwed up, who was responsible for collecting and disseminating false information, and the slow slide into strategic and tactical confusion as lives and money flowed into the country never to return.

For me, Whitlock’s tale begs a question: why do Americans do this? And so consistently? Is there a flaw in the American system of government that allows such egregious error and apparent incompetence to dominate their actions? Or does a possible flaw lie elsewhere, in national culture or character perhaps? And if the latter, why isn’t the flaw - governmental or cultural - something they debate seriously rather than merely using these kinds of gross failures in partisan point scoring?

I would like to extend Whitlock’s journalistic narrative beyond what he is able to report professionally, therefore. Here are some ideas about the source of what are really global disasters imposed by the United States on the rest of the world:

There’s little doubt about it: Americans are indeed idealists. But this is in no way a virtue. Idealists do very stupid and destructive things. And when those things become to much to bear or pay for, they move on to other ideals in order to repeat the cycle. They never realise that the problem they have is not the execution of this or that ideal, but the idea of the ideal itself. Eventually all ideals trap and control the idealist.

Idealists believe that the key to realising success is the precise and complete articulation of the state of affairs that should be achieved. As a matter of principle idealists are taught to ignore the details of the current situation as these interfere with a vision for the future. Impediments to the realisation of the ideal are dealt with as they arise of course. But it would be inefficient to consider these in advance. Ignorance of other cultures, possible constraints on action, and persistence in the face of resistance are idealists virtues. Besides, mere articulation and presentation of what are considered self-evident ideals to them should enrol all sincere people into its realisation. The rest can be subdued by power.

Idealists love power. After all the power necessary to achieve an ideal is implied by the ideal itself. Therefore idealists will use increasing amounts of power - military, economic, political - until resources are entirely depleted or until the ideal is reconsidered as ill-advised (a rare occurrence). American idealists seem constitutionally unable to admit that any particular ideal was badly formulated. However, upon achieving any ideal, they progress to further idealisation as a mark of success. Idealism is the foundation for terrorism in all its manifestations. This suggest some inability to learn from experience.

Idealists are, indeed, constitutionally unable to learn. Commitment to an ideal implies that those involved must be prepared to hold to it steadfastly while it is being pursued. But when ideals prove inadequate for the situation, they provide no guidance for future ideals since ideals by their nature are irrational (or perhaps extra-rational) phenomena. They exist not as a matter of necessity or appropriateness but of pure will. Consequently any failure of idealistic effort requires a replacement of the failed ideal with no impact at all on the commitment to idealism. Failed ideals may also be resurrected when their failure is no longer noted in popular culture (that is to say, among the electorate)

Idealists lie and believe themselves justified in doing so. Whether in government or Silicon Valley, Americans lie as part of the programme to promote a particular ideal and consider lying toward this end virtuous. Since any serious ideals are rarely achieved easily, lying is essential to maintain the commitment of those enrolled in the ideal. Progress is exaggerated; setbacks minimised, and, if ideals are subtly modified, changes are simply hidden. It helps, of course, if the original ideals were only vaguely formulated in order to allow rather free interpretation and wiggle-room for change without discussion (known in military circles as mission creep).

Idealists, in fact, hate the political process of discussion and compromise. Consequently they tend to rather conceptually define their ideals - freedom, for example, or democratic government, or women’s rights - and then exclude many other possible ideals as interference and irrelevant to the cause - like honesty, integrity, and solidarity say. How dare anyone suggest that there should be compromise of an ideal once accepted! This is heresy among Americans. In fact, there are an infinite number of extraneous ideals that are necessarily excluded from idealist thinking. These excluded ideals are not even considered as constraints but are ignored entirely. It is usually these ignored ideals that are diagnosed as the cause of failure.

But idealism prevails despite repeated failures, not just in war but in domestic politics in which idealism has become a rampant disease paralysing the body politic at all levels. This shouldn’t be surprising, I suppose, in a country founded on ideals, and whose children are educated that pragmatic idealism is an obviously superior philosophy to any other, and whose adult population engages continually in idealist promotion from a vast number of pulpits, advertisements, and sources of political propaganda. Whether on the Left or Right, among the Believers or the Atheists, idealism is the name of the game in America. Perhaps that’s where the problem that Whitlock documents, yet again, actually lies.

* Just two of the many books which tell the story of American involvement in VietNam that could read just as fluidly and accurately if Afghanistan replaced that country’s name: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

View all my reviews