Sociology 2: Class 19: Globalization & Conflict 3 Copyright © 2012 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements Final exam coming up… Format similar to midterm Topics: All course material… with main emphasis on material covered in weeks 5-10 Final Exam Time: Thursday, March 21, 1:30-3:30pm –NOTE: not during the “normal” class time… Final exam review sheet on website Course Evaluations available online! Feedback welcome! Today’s Class: Culture & Conflict Afghanistan

Review: Identity/culture Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture: 1. Primordial view Culture/ethnicity/identity is deeply rooted, fundamental 2. The “social constructionist” view: identity/ethnicity are malleable: They change over time and with social context People exhibit different identities in different contexts Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”) Political processes and social circumstances shape and alter identities Research evidence favors this view…

Review: culture/ethnicity & conflict Do cultural/ethnic/religious differences lead to conflict? –Huntington: Yes, “civilizational” differences are fundamental, hard to overcome –Bowen: No, ethnic/cultural/religious identities are socially constructed Ethnic/religious identities are not “ancient” / unchanging Ethnic/religious identities don’t motivate people to fight or kill – except when prodded over and over by leaders –“It is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence.” Ethnic/religious animosity is usually the result, rather than the cause of conflict…

Satirical Video Topic: Ethnic/religious conflicts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan –Issue: Social science theories have very different implications for strategy Ex: hard power vs. soft power Ex: Primordial vs. Socially constructed ethnicity Video: The Onion: Drones & Civilian Casualties death-robots-be-hurting-am,27601/ death-robots-be-hurting-am,27601/

Local Reactions to Globalization So, if globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to ethnic conflict… what’s up with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why are there suicide bombers? Why is there a war in Afghanistan? The general issue: How can we understand “anti- Western” groups?

Local Responses to Globalization Local reactions against Western culture, imperialism: 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture –Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish Historically most common. Arguably the most “authentically” traditional response to outsiders Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate –Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control… can’t compete with Western education, media, labor market.

Local Responses to Globalization Reactions against Western culture: 2. “Reactionary movements”: Social movements that attack the system, offer an alternative Examples: French social movements against American food, popular culture; Some Islamic fundamentalists. –Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it. Examples from readings, personal experience?

Local Responses to Globalization Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims” Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary movements: “Traditional” and “Modern” –Traditional Reactionary Movements: Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan –Mostly fight to get outsiders to leave Usually organized by actual indigenous people –Participants are usually local Not very common…

Local Responses to Globalization Kurzman reading: (cont’d) –“Modern” Reactionary Movements: Ex: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda –Typically organized by highly educated people More like a social movement –Sophisticated use of media, etc… Not really a very “local” response at all… Argument: These are modern social movements.

Reactionary Movements Sociologists have criticized conventional views –1. Ethnicity, culture, religion are socially constructed rather than primordial Ethnicity and religion don’t inevitably produce conflict Rather, leaders often push/prod people to fight… –2. Cultural differences aren’t sufficient to explain why people rise up, participate in social movements Rather, we have to consider the role of: Resources Political context Leaders who promote conflict.

The War in Afghanistan Be sure to read: Schaeffer, Robert K “Revolution and War in Afghanistan.” Pp (chapter 11) in Understanding Globalization (4 th ed). Geography of Afghanistan Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, & Tajikistan to the north –Both part of the Soviet Union until 1990 Iran to the West Pakistan to the South and East

Afghanistan: Early History Afghanistan lies along the “silk road” –“Khyber Pass” Gateway to Asia from Europe/Middle East Long history of commerce A road used by invading armies throughout history –Alexander the Great; Ghengis Khan –Britain colonized India (including Pakistan) –And, made several efforts to control Afghanistan –But, never fully conquered it

Afghanistan: Soviet Influence Russian/Soviet empire bordered Afghanistan Russia repeatedly made efforts to ensure a “friendly” regime controlled Afghanistan –Much like the US tries to support US-friendly leaders in Latin America… sometimes using war or covert operations –Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 Following the assassination of a pro-Russian leader –US “Cold War” policy: Oppose Soviet expansion US didn’t send troops… instead “covert” operations US CIA & military aid was channeled to anti-Soviet groups within Afghanistan –Often via Pakistan (& their “OSI” – secret service) “Mujahideen” groups received billions in weapons/cash

Afganistan: Soviet Influence Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1988 Combination of inhospitable terrain, local insurgents, & US-funded insurgency… resulted in stalemate It was like US war in Vietnam: Soviets weren’t exactly defeated, but suffered losses & gave up –Tragedy: Massive civilian casualties (1 million?) –Soviet departure left a mess Several competing groups with lots of weapons –Including: Taliban & United Front (“Northern Alliance”) Result: civil war –Taliban conquered most of country in 1996 With continued support of Pakistan & the “OSI”.

Afganistan: Taliban Rule Taliban waged a civil war for control over Afghanistan for years With extensive support of Pakistan & the “OSI” –In 1996 the Taliban conquered most of the country Established the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” A very reactionary/conservative Islamic regime –NOTE: Not all Islamic states are highly repressive, but this was Extremely repressive (e.g., regarding women’s rights) –And, many atrocities –Taliban supported & worked with various militant groups, including Al Qaeda Al Qaeda recruited & trained militias in Afghanistan…

US War in Afghanistan After 9/11, US sought to destroy Al Qaeda Decided to overthrow Taliban to deny “training camps” & “safe havens” –Issue: US wanted to avoid a costly ground war Soviet experience: difficult terrain; high casualties –Strategy: Rely on air power & elite forces Coordinate with Pakistan and anti-Taliban groups in Afghanistan for “boots on the ground” 2006 briefing (joint chiefs): anticipation of Iraq war diverted resources… Afghanistan done “cheaply”

US War in Afghanistan US air war scattered the Taliban & Al Qaeda Installed Hamid Karzai as new leader Problem: US allies on the ground = weak, disorganized, and had mixed motives Pakistan doesn’t fully control border area Lots of people in Pakistan sympathetic to Taliban –Including secret service (OSI) –Result: Some Al Qaeda & Taliban forces escaped into Pakistan & regrouped Disorder in Pakistan continues to hamper US war Plus, it is hard to stabilize/democratize a country (esp. with few troops)… so the war grinds on…

Reactionary Movements & Conflict Video: Return of the Taliban Chapters 1-3 (19 min), 6-7 (15 min) –Chapters 4-5 (21 min) if time allows…