Famous Afghan woman evacuated

My point Alan, is we helped create this monster. I'm not apologizing for them. And we didn't give a hoot about their freedom, we did it to attack our rival, the Soviets. The point the movie made at the end is, when we had the chance to create some positive change in Afghanistan, we instead lost interest and walked away leaving it to the Taliban.

 

Germany post WWII, the Marshall plan really helped them rebuild.

 

Well I've noticed that the "benefits" of occupation/colonization vary enormously depending on who is telling the story.

 

In fact, to go further, I have traveled in a large number of present and former colonies/occupied zones and it's extemely hard to find anyone in those places who look fondly on their past experiences with the "metropolitan" power.
to be sure, see


It's my experience that most people would rather go to hell in their very OWN handbasket

 

What monster did we create? We helped free Afghanistan from Russian occupation. After gaining freedom, they stabbed us in the back on 9-11 and supported Bin Laden. That's disgraceful of them and totally smacks of ingratitude.

So now we walked away again leaving them in the lurch. All those Afghans that helped us over twenty years maintaining freedom for women there like Gulla and others now have to face the Taliban's retribution. So now we stabbed our allies in the back. So now we're acting disgracefully.

 

Not only Germany but Western Europe. Getting them back on their own feet helped keep the Soviets from expanding communism and totalitarianism into Western Europe from Eastern Europe.

 

Is true Sir.

 

Yeah, I didn't really like the way we walked away. I think we worked hard to make it right after the initial cluster, but it could have been much smoother and better for those that were helping us. We did end up getting a lot out, but we had lots of good intel as to whom are friends were and could have planned that part much better.

But really? I think the Taliban are pretty monstrous. it's obvious that what became the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the mutations afterwards, including ISIS were initially created by us. We motivated them, funded them, armed them to the hilt and then aimed them at the Soviets. We didn't care one wit about creating freedom in Afghanistan. For the U.S. it was purely real politik to hurt the Soviets. In fact, Afghanistan under the Soviets was a far better place then it was under the Taliban. We encouraged funded and armed the whole mujahideen movement and then, when we achieved our goal of getting the Soviets out, we walked away and watched thousands of American armed and trained Islamic warriors filter back into the Arab world and hand them to the Wahabis and Salafists. We weren't fighting for freedom, we were fighting for domination over the Soviets, at the time, our perceived existential rival. BTW, Magnum Photo Magnum Photos | Iconic images, authentic visual storytelling Magnum Photos has a lot of photographic work from different viewpoints in Afghanistan.

 

Stepping back towards photography, some might be interested in the work of another National Geographic photographer; Reza Deghati?

REZA Photography

 

So to make up for our lack of involvement after the Soviet era, we worked hard for twenty years the second time after 9-11 to give them freedom, and what happened? They weren't interested in it in the end. They threw their guns down and accepted Taliban control. Maybe they wanted to keep their women covered all along. Maybe it's not our business trying to change others people's cultures and beliefs.

We were probably right to walk away the first time during the Soviet era. We should have done it after the initial stages after 9-11; just walked away with a warning to not support terrorists or we'll be back. Instead, we got involved and lost lots of blood and treasure for nothing. The Taliban and terrorists are back again in charge.

 

As an aside the Afghans were in ages past significant players in both Iran/Persia and India (they kicked the Mughul emperor out on at least one occasion). The British got the asses kicked severely once and stalemated from then on, so the Russians and the US are not the only ones. A tragedy nevertheless, and from the US perspective a thoroughly bipartisan defeat, but I think it fair to say there was no stomach by Americans/NATO for more gold to be spent there, despite all the criticism and wailing. Obama gave them a strong hint that they could/would win by saying US troops would leave, a decision reversed, and Trump basically just set up the timetable and agreed to leave with only verbal agreements that had no teeth whatsoever, as he was as eager to leave as the rest of us. So the pro-western Afghans were shafted, just like the South Vietnamese. A tragedy, but one we could see coming. Refugees should be swiftly granted asylum in Western (or at least NATO) countries.

 

Very nice. What is it about "street" shots in foreign lands that become so attractive?

 

Because we generally don't go there. The appeal of the "exotic".

 

In this case, it’s more than the appeal of the exotic. It’s that perfected National Geographic-y sense of “beauty.” For all the emotionally-distanced humanity those photos show, the people may as well be plants. One thing for sure, the sharp, “piercing” eyes of the first girl shows the McCurry influence on future photographers. There’s a precision of technique and objectivity of perspective to these photos that I find more mathematical than humanistic.

 

Nice try Steve but the all-too-frequent OT undertow drowns another thread on PN.

 

Then they should find our "boring" street shots here also exotic.

 

I believe the European conflict ( 2nd WW) was not simply an "American" involvement .
Hence my mention of Japan . Just kinda clarifying my earlier remark .

 

Who would have thought that commenting on Afghanistan would be considered OT in a thread about the only Afghan person most Americans have seen (together with Malala). There is more to life than photography and there are certainly all sorts of germane discussions to be had about McCurry's famous image, which cannot be understood without attempting to understand the country itself. I am reminded of the apocryphal trade magazine that famously reported "earthquake in Iran 10,000 killed. Middle East sales remain steady".

They probably do - the lifestyles of the West photographed by the masters of street photography.

I do agree with Sam that Nat Geo does have a strong concept of "the beautiful aesthetic". I have no problem with that as I share it myself. It is open to criticism that it is unrealistic, superficial, imperialistic/colonialistic, racist, romantic, orientalist and so on. So one takes each shot as one finds it and judges it accordingly. It would be a mistake to think that people in the places where these sorts of shots are taken are truly any more informed about, say, the US than we are about them. Most people find all sorts of things to say about photographs whether the photographer meant it or not when taking them.

 

Malala is not from Afghanistan.

Yes, there is more to life than photography. But this is PHOTO.net.

'Understanding the country itself' is just a lame excuse for off topic venting of political views.

 

"at Geo does have a strong concept of "the beautiful aesthetic". Robin

Perhaps they are trying to show, that among the horrors of war, there is a beauty in just ordinary folk, who are being murdered, In the name of politics and greed.