The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss - Current Events: Follow Up on Afghanistan with Noam Chomsky

Episode Date: August 23, 2021

Listen to our newest mini-series "Current Events with Noam Chomsky"! In this episode, Lawrence and Noam have a follow-up discussion about the latest developments in Afghanistan. Show your support and access exclusive bonus content at https://www.patreon.com/originspodcast Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Hi there, this is Lawrence Krause with the Origins podcast. And earlier today, I recorded a video with Noam Chomsky. About a month ago, Noam and I recorded several videos about current events, and one of them involved what turned out to be very prescient predictions by Noam about Afghanistan if the United States continued to withdraw its forces precipitously. And his discussion was not only prescient, but I think very important, and a lot of people have written to me about it and have watched it again. And I thought it would be a nice idea to have an update from Noam. As we talk about current events in Afghanistan, and so that's what we did today, and I'm happy to be able to present it here today. I think the most important point that Noam made is that

we, once again, we really need to think about what's best for the Afghan people, and that's often not discussed when one talks about the consequences of this withdrawal. Of course, people talk about the Taliban rule and rights, individual human rights, women's rights, etc. But he made a very important point, I thought, about the fact that one talks about the toll of the 20 years war, and one reads what's written about in most American papers, the toll seems to be mostly discussed the number of American service people who were killed in that war and that invasion and the subsequent war. And of course it's tragic that they lost their lives. But the fact that the Afghan people, many of them died and suffered in the process, is worth remembering

and it's worth remembering what we can do as a country now in spite of a regime which most of us find rather despicable. What can we do to try and ensure that for the Afghan people in the long term, they can prosper, and what can this country do? And so, as he talked about, I think the public pushing for this will be a very important way to try and get, in the long term, our politicians to do the right thing. So some of you may find this quite provocative and may disagree with it, but that's the point, to get discussion going and to think about the important issues. So with no further ado, I'm really happy to bring back.

Noam Chomsky. Well, thanks, Noam for coming back on. It's always good to see you. And I've been going over your, I was going to say our prescient, but let me put it as your prescient discussion with me beforehand about Afghanistan. And as many people have noted to me now online, you were, bang on about what would happen if there was a withdrawal. And so I thought it thought it be worth having a few minutes to update and and see and address some of the issues that you raised before when we talked about Afghanistan and also to talk about what might what might be done now which is probably more more more appropriate I was thinking about when I was re-listening to our discussion I was reminded that my parents used to have a small gift shop that I used to work at

and whenever someone would pick down a little piece of China would break, there was a sign that says, if you break it, it's yours. And so that made me think of Afghanistan. And so why do you comment on the current situation, and then I'll ask some questions, I think. Well, the current situation is exactly what we described a couple of months ago. perfectly foreseeable. Both of us have the big advantage over the government

that we don't get intelligence reports. So we're not misled about what's happening. If you just take a look what's going on on the ground, it was pretty obvious. I mean, could go through the reasons, but it wasn't hard to see what was going to happen. And of course, the failure to consult with Afghans continues. We just pay attention to ourselves. So as to what should happen now, we should, first of all,

rethink a lot of things going back 20 years. We could go back to, I mean, if you want to talk about what I've written, go back to what I've wrote 20 years ago, and others like me, it was pretty obvious. what was going to happen, happen. We have to overcome the arrogance, the imperial arrogance, the unwillingness to pay attention to our victims, the willingness to rethink policies that are oriented towards maximizing our own wealth and power, irrespective of what happens to anyone else. And that's crucial right now. So take the policy now being put into place of punishing Afghans because the government that they had and that we overthrew is now back in office. Remember, we overthrew the government. It's now back. Well, I don't like it. You don't like it. A lot of governments I don't like starting pretty close to home. But that happens to be the government of the government of the of Afghanistan now, and there's no justification for publishing, punishing the population,

because we don't like their government. So withholding their funds, which happened to be, from the U.S. runs the international financial system, which gives it enormous leverage over others, enables us to torture and punish people all over the world. Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, wherever we want to torture people, we can do it by forcing other countries to obey our sanctions or else be thrown out of the international financial system. We should rethink all of that. In the present case, we should ask whether it's legitimate for us to withhold from Afghanistan, the billions of dollars that are kept in New York. Is that helpful to the people of Afghanistan? then? Is that what they would ask for us from? Well, I'd rather doubt it, but that's a question we should

ask. Well, let me ask you the question another way. First of all, let me put on a devil's advocate hat, I suppose. It's not yet a government. The question is, when you withhold the money, who are you withholding the money from? And should we just recognize it as a government and arrange some way to work with it or not. So the question that I think a lot of people would ask is where, if we open the money, where does the money go and who? That's something we've negotiating with various parties in Afghanistan. They're defect of the government. They may not be officially the government. In fact, I should say that in our discussion a couple of months ago, the one part that I think was a surprise, at least to me, was the quick collapse

of the Northern Alliance that had carried out long resistance against the Taliban, and it held out and had, in fact, support from the neighboring countries. They were Tajik, Susbeks, right next door. But they simply accommodated right away, and we say collapse, in fact, defected to the So it's not clear that there's any organized resistance now. I mean, they break out, you know, tribal countries are going to be lots of objections, but there is a de facto governing party. Certainly they should be taken into account along with anyone else we can identify in trying

to answer your question. But the principle that we will withhold the money unless we get a government what we like, I don't think that's legitimate. Yeah, I would agree with that. I guess as far as I can tell, all the Western countries have yet held off on recognizing that government. I don't know if the Taliban has expressed, has yet claimed a government to recognize. Right now, I don't know if it's officially recognized, but it has official deal. with Russia and China. So if we want to hand Afghanistan over to them, well, we can do it.

Russia has meanwhile pretty much displaced the United States in Central Asia. A couple of years ago, Central Asian countries were hosting huge American military bases. They're pretty much under U.S. control. It's all been dismantled. The Russian forces are back, actually right now. Now, Russian and Tajik troops are mobilizing on the Afghanistan-Tegistan border, partly as the Russians say, to hold up a fist, to say, you better not be sending terrorists into Central Asia, or we're going to clamp down, but partly as a measure of accommodation. and the Chinese are moving to try to integrate them into their hold. Do you think then at this stage the best way to try, I mean, there's great statements about hoping that the Taliban won't revert to the ways it had, the last time it was in control in terms of its fundamentalist.

Sharia law, that the way to address that is by financial aid or other other ways? Well, at least accommodation, willingness to discuss, negotiate, maybe trade relations, but it should be done. We have to go back to the basic principle. Why are we doing it? Is it for the benefit of the Afghans or is it for the benefit of U.S. power and concerns? If it's the latter, it's going to be it's going to be both immoral and a disaster. Yeah. Yeah. Well, last time we talked about wanting to do what should be done is what the Afghan people want to be done.

And we both agreed we weren't sure we knew, given the inability to get information. Do you think the collapse of the Northern Alliance so quickly would in some ways indicate that there's less or more national acceptance of the Taliban than one thought before? Or do you think there are other reasons? Well, we just can't deny the fact that the Taliban have plenty of support in the rural areas. Just as the Islamic fundamentalists were supported had support in the rural areas under the Russians, not in Kabul, not in the modernizing areas. Well, though we can't take polls, we can try to identify elements. within Afghanistan and try to estimate their wishes and beliefs.

It's always been possible, still possible. Well, without talking and withholding, it is hard to find out what their beliefs and desires are. What do you think, well, now the immediate concern, I guess, among many people is what's happening at the airport and what can be done to at least try and, and assist, well, to help the current situation be ameliorated as much as possible. Is there anything that can be done short of more troops at the airport or something? Well, the one, we really owe the Afghan's reparations. It's been 20 years of destruction, killing, for which we have a very large share of responsibility.

and one form of reparations is just to rescue those who want to get out. But right now it's hard to do that, right? Well, I doubt that it's that hard. You still don't seem to be able to get to the airport as far as I can tell. But we can't help people get to the airport, but if they are there, we can take them out. Now, speaking of owing reparations, I actually think I read on actually kind of what you might say was a right-wing blog

about that making the key point that, of the, you know, trillion dollars or $900 billion of what ever has been spent in Afghanistan, very little of it was claimed actually went to helping meet the needs of Afghanistan people, which is one of the reasons perhaps they were less supportive of the government that was installed there. Most of it was spent on military operations and other things.

Do you want to comment on that? Well, first of all, if you look at the trillions of dollars, that were spent. Most of them were spent right here. It's the military expenditures, paying the army, the contractors, it mostly comes right back here. The amount that was spent for the benefits theoretically of Afghans is a very small percentage of that. And it's same with the Russians. You know, they were also maybe even better than we did. If you look back at the record, there is a material about that,

which you can't publish in the United States, but it's available from highly credible sources. But that's a small portion of the total expenditure, and it was not, there were efforts, certainly people on the ground. They were honest, decent people trying to help the population, but that was not the thrust of the policy. Or the money as far. I mean, very little of it. There were things being done, but I've read of the 900 billion, roughly 20 billion or so, ended up being direct infrastructure improvements in school. And I remember in 2001, I wrote a piece,

which was naive, I'll admit, or maybe it appeared to me naive. I was obviously against the invasion. And I said at the time, the best thing we could do would be to send school materials rather than bombs to try and help educate young people. Obviously, it's naive to expect that we can get through to that, but I can't help but think right now that it's a very difficult. None of us know what the Taliban is going to do and how badly they're going to revert. they claim they're going to respect human rights and women's rights, but one never knows. Certainly reports go both ways, we'll see. I think they recognize that they need to make some accommodation, at least in order to get some recognition from the rest of the world. But an active program of, it may seem crazy, but like was done in Germany, an active program to help restore infrastructure in the long run, I think seems to be more.

effective than either ignoring it or military efforts. I don't know how you feel about that. If we don't do it, we're basically asking the Chinese to do it. But I think the real question is what's the principle? Are we seeking ways to help Afghans or to improve our own imperial posture? Well, exactly. That's the good question. I guess the question is what politically flies right now. I understand I didn't hear his speech, but Biden was just online on TV saying he would get people out. But if the president

announced right now we're going to work with the Taliban and provide humanitarian support and infrastructure support, do you think that would possibly fly politically right now? I think it's I think the discussions with the Afghans about

these topics would be valuable. That means mostly the Taliban. And efforts to implement such programs would be quite sensible. If they approve, as I assume they would, we don't know how they'd work. Do you think Congress, I mean, he's a Democratic president. Don't you think he'd be kind of castigated for saying we want to? I think the real impediment is here. Yeah.

Sell that program here. Yeah, exactly. I'm saying here it wouldn't fly politically. That's a problem in the United States and Canada. We happen to have savage, brutal cultures which want to take revenge, not to help people. Okay?

That's a problem of bringing civilized values to countries like the United States and Canada. That's what we can try to do. How successfully we'll see. Well, it's certainly... That's the, yeah, I think that's the problem. right now to say, well, you know, you're right. People want to, well, people are worried about humanitarian problems and want them solved and with good reason. But then I think many, if one argued that one

wanted to provide support to improve the environment there, that it would be politically impossible in the United States and it would be almost suicide for an American president to say that right now. There's another aspect of this, just coming right down the road. If Afghan refugees come here, It's going to elicit anti-Muslim hysteria about bringing these, you know, you can just listen to Trump and his acolytes, bringing the rapists and the murderers and the criminals to kill us here. That's very likely going to happen instead of trying to welcome, integrate, assist people. the way Syrian refugees were pretty much accepted in Germany. Unless we try to do that, if we don't do that, we'll have more increase of the counter-civilizational tendencies in our own countries.

There's plenty to deal with here as to what the policies should be towards the Taliban. I think it's just exploratory. I have to see how things develop. but observe the principle that they're the ones who matter, not us. Okay, and I mean, I think, you know, for those of us who care about what's good for the Afghan people, one, to try and assist those you need to leave, including all the people who relied on, who aided the United States. And two, if, as I suspect, and as we both agree, politically, it's hard to imagine in the current climate,

the U.S. government announcing that they would provide, you know, interne negotiations, provide support, release funds. I guess that what can people do? I mean, I think if we're recommending, you know, obviously we give money to aid agency,

some of us, but I suppose what we could recommend is that people contact their congresspeople and indicate that the Afghan people need support and that means working with a government that you may not like? No, but notice that the problem is here. The problem is not what kind of policies we should carry out,

but what can we do to facilitate the implementation of policies that would be beneficial to Afghans? That's a U.S. Canadian problem. And that is to be dealt with the way all activist efforts are. It's not just, I mean, yes, contacting Congress is one thing. But the first thing to do is to build up the large-scale, engage, dedicated, popular support. It's a matter of consciousness raising among the general population.

Well, and that's part of the reason. I think you just hit the part of the reason I want that these things are hopefully a little bit useful is by allowing our discussion today and putting it online to try and encourage, or at least impact on the public discussion, because you're absolutely right. Governments don't lead. I learned that from you. They follow. I mean, just to give a concrete example, if you open today's newspapers, Washington Post,

has a major story in which they run through the costs of the 20 years of the war in Afghanistan. I saw that. First picture that's presented is Arlington Street, Arlington Cemetery. Then comes American soldiers. You can read down to the very end a couple of words about the cost of Afghans. We should reach a point where people respond to this with feeling of shame, maybe horror. should be the other way around. What we should be highlighting is the cost to Afghans.

Yes, you mourn the American soldiers who were killed in this war that should never have been undertaken, condemn the people who initiated it, supported it in the media and elsewhere, but concentrate on the cost to the victims. excellent okay well that's a that's a I wanted to have a short update I know you're really busy and I wanted to spend a little time and we'll we'll come back to this but but let's hope at least for the people we know of in Afghanistan that that at least somehow we can have a positive impact on the country which we've had which we've helped you know helped put in a difficult situation

And I don't, I mean, I kind of feel like in the near term, there's no good outcomes, but maybe in the long term there can be. Well, it's the same in every case. And people are making comparisons to the Vietnam War. The comparison they ought to be making, in my opinion, is what happened in the early 60s. When Kennedy sharply escalated the war, started using chemical warfare. to destroy crops and livestock. So as part of the program of driving peasants into what amount of the concentration camps,

the U.S. intelligence was quite aware that they were supporting the South Vietnamese guerrillas, started the American Air Force bombing, authorized napalm. Where was the opposition? Well, it was small groups of people talking to each other. Finally, after a lot of resistance, a lot of work, media hating it, bitterly condemning it, finally a protest movement developed, which was strong enough to have some effect. That's the way things develop.

Same with everything else. A feminist movement began with small groups of women talking to each other about whether we should accept the forms of life that we're told are ours necessarily. That's how movements develop. But we don't have a lot of time, but we know how to proceed. That's right. Time is the big question. And I think, yeah, what I learned from you, as I say,

is that governments follow, they don't lead. Eventually, if there's enough public sentiment, then eventually kicking and screaming, governments will act. And I hope that the message you're giving now and that we're giving now can get out and we can be a small part of that effort to try and build a discussion of how to really help a country that that desperately needs it. Absolutely. Thanks a lot, Noam, and it's always good to talk to you. You take care. Bye-bye.