BBC “Afghanistan: The Lion’s Last Roar” – Ep 1 – Review

Afghanistan: The Lion’s Last Roar: There is a tried and tested model followed by documentarians who want to excuse the criminality of failed aggressive wars. Ten Alps plc’s production companies (in this case, Blakeway) churn them out prodigiously for the BBC. First, it is important to skate over the fundamental legal and moral precepts violated in the initial act of aggression. Then, for the rest of the programme, unleash a series of high-ranking officials from the aggressors’ military and government to tell the story.

What you get is a story of strategic muddle. None of them are really to blame. True, the politicians and high officials didn’t understand Afghanistan. They put the British military into impossible situations, underresourced and poorly directed. But intelligence is imperfect, they acted in good faith to support a demanding ally, in the US, and defend our nations on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan).

“The Lion’s Last Roar” is primarily from the British military perspective in Afghanistan. If the programme deviates at all from the archetype, it is in subordinating political voices in favour of military ones. As a result, there is an overt criticism of the Iraq war being based on “fallacious” claims and an open recognition that the West allied in Afghanistan with warlords who were as bad, if not worse, than the Taliban.

However, there is no consideration of the legality and morality of attacking Afghanistan. It is presumed that we all agree it was the ‘Good War’. The programme sets the scene by telling us that Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaida attacked the US on 9/11 and that they were based in Afghanistan and being harboured by the Taliban.

It is important that these documentaries avoid certain information that may cast doubt on the Western states’ right to attack. For example, that the Taliban tried to enter into negotiations with the US for the handing over of bin Laden to a third-party if evidence of his culpability was provided. The US refused to provide any evidence or enter into negotiations, instead, predictably, assumed that its military might entitled it to by-pass law. The US and its allies chose not to get explicit UN security council approval for any attack.

Moreover, in 2002, FBI director, Robert Mueller, told the press that, after investigations, he only “believed” that the 9/11 attacks had been hatched in Afghanistan and implemented in Germany and the UAE. This suggests that the US and its allies attacked Afghanistan in 2001 without clear evidence of a link with 9/11.

The initial war aim of the US and Britain was to attack and destroy Al Qaida in Afghanistan. It was only once bombing had commenced that the overthrow of the Taliban regime was introduced as a justification for aggression. This is a clear indicator that the concerns about bringing democracy and human rights to Afghanistan were not priorities – backed up by the Western alliances with warlords.

Naturally, with such documentaries (and unlike those presented by the BBC’s Yalda Hakim, for instance) the experiences and views of ordinary Afghanis – the group who have suffered the most – are of no value whatsoever. Except for some words by an alleged Taliban fighter, some Western-backed Afghani officials and a village elder, Afghanis don’t have much of a voice. Certainly, the suffering of the ordinary people, those displaced by the millions, killed by the thousands, have no real platform.

Even the families of the 453 British servicemen and women killed have no direct voice in these documentaries. Such programmes are designed to defend important reputations, obfuscate the facts of criminality and enable the next excursion.

Advertisements

A Preview of the New IWM London (July 2014)

Stephen Moss concluded, in his July 2014 preview of IWM London, the following:

One day, some future Big Think really will have to consign the Imperial War Museum to history. There will come a point where the first world war ceases to look like the start of everything and becomes part of a continuum. How much longer can the war on terror and the struggles of the present century be treated as addenda to the great wars of the first half of the 20th century? Something will have to give. But, for the moment, we should celebrate the museum’s reopening, and the British way of embracing difference – and diffidence. We may be unduly keen on going to war, but at least we haven’t built a monument to our martial spirit. Which other country, after all, would have housed its military museum in a former asylum? War and the madness of war.

I’m not sure that I agree. Regarding the name of the Museum, that is very much secondary to the content. The Museum does not glorify all war but, particularly, in its omissions, there is often a tacit approval of the militarism of Britain and its allies. This is partly achieved through overlooking the great suffering and deaths endured by resistors of British imperialism, be it in Kenya or modern day Iraq. Notably, the Museum’s ongoing Afghanistan exhibitions, ‘War Story’, continues to overlook the voices of Afghani victims, preferring British voices.

In its credit, the Museum’s art displays, ‘Truth and Memory’ and ‘IWM Contemporary’ have opened some space for victims’ perspectives. The Museums’ large collections of paintings capture the brutality of the dead and maimed soldiers of WW1. Meanwhile, Mark Neville’s video footage, recently on display, captured ordinary Afghani people at the market in the shadow of a passing military vehicle. In the new main atrium of the Museum, lie the remains of a bombed car from Baghdad, and a Reuters press vehicle that came under attack by Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories. But, still we wait to be allowed to hear and see directly the ordinary victims.

Read Stephen Moss’ full article, published in The Guardian on 10th July 2014, here.