Hello world!
“Taliban claim two Spanish victims.” ” US General: 2011 Afghanistan Deadline 'Giving Our Enemy Sustenance'.” “Corruption Tie in Afghanistan Has Echoes of CIA's Past.”
The above headings were found after a 2 minute Google News search. The power of Web 2.0!
Follow me as this college senior and blogging novice tracks the development of current events in Afghanistan over the course of the semester. There is certainly no shortage of newsworthy events at the moment. As an International Relations major with a focus in International Security and a minor in Middle East Studies, I guess it feels almost natural to be interested in Aghanistan’s role in the Middle East (and NATO’s role in it to an extent), and how that role will change in the immediate future.
But I do find writing purely about politics a wee bit dull, so I am keen to explore how other aspects of life such as culture, religion and economics play into the overall picture. I will however confess that my knowledge of the area is very limited, and I hope this blog will enable me to further develop my understanding as I seek out various news sources and create my own analysis.
Bit of a heavy subject, I know. One that may result in me sleeping with my stuffed toys for comfort again. So why am I doing this?
Besides the academic interest, I have always wanted to work in the non-profit sector in some capacity, whether it be in an office or out in the field. I understand that there are certain risks that come with the job, depending on what you do and where you are. At least, I thought I did.
There really is little justification to have people like Karen Woo expect an average lifespan of a few days once they set foot on the land they choose to work in, especially when the job description is to preserve life, and you have someone trying to end yours. The increase in deadly attacks against peacekeepers and NGO personnel in the Middle East has made such professions extremely dangerous, as many organizations have pulled out workers from hotspots or ceased operations all together. Security and charity may seem like they are on opposite ends of the international relations spectrum, but the two are irrevocably linked, especially in such volatile regions.
On a final note and a warning to readers, I enter this debate from a politically liberal background. While I do not have significant ties to Afghanistan or the United States (you can probably tell from the way I spell certain words), I spent this past spring wearing down Edinburgh’s cobblestones persuading voters-to-be to cross that box for the Labour party. (We all know how that turned out.) Such influences will no doubt be reflected in my commentary, but I have been moving to a more centrist position and am always happy to accept ideas and arguments from other points of view.
My main objective is not to be overly partisan (and feel free to let me know if I am straying from this path); there are enough columns, op-eds, and blogs out there for that. The goal of this blog is to ensure I am well-informed to make my own judgements about each situation, and help readers to do the same.
Blog profile
In trying to find an example of a blog that would be as close as possible to what I had in mind for my own, I found myself looking at those written by academics living stateside. Afghan Notebook is one such blog, written by Vikash Yadav, an Assistant Professor of Political Science. His specialises in “sovereignty, security, and identity in South Asia”, and is conducting research on India’s strategy in Afghanistan. He states in his profile, “I don't claim to be an expert on Afghanistan…which is why I am keeping this log of what I am learning.” A humble approach, and he seems to have been following it so far.
Afghan Notebook’s prominence in the world of social media appears minimal, as it does not appear on the Technorati scale, and in fact doesn’t even appear in the first few Google search results on Afghanistan blogs. This could be due to his erratic posting, alternating periods of frequent updates with months where he travels to conduct research and posts maybe once or twice a month. It is a bit of a shame that his blog is not more prominent as it is very resourceful, with a variety of sources on his blogroll, a public Twitter account that regularly posts links to articles he finds interesting, and another sidebar that posts the titles and excerpts of news articles.
As inferred in the blog title, Yadav examines issues in Afghanistan that also concern countries such as India and Pakistan. He also discusses US military action and developments in foreign policy since the conflict began, and two of his more recent posts are of particular interest. The first one is his summary of what has changed, with some interesting points on the coining of catchphrases to describe new strategies and the increasing radicalisation of religion, not in the Middle East and Asia, but in the Eastern world; recent events certainly seem to support these points. The second post recalls a debate he had with a fellow professor over counter-insurgency tactics in Afghanistan, where he questions if the method of “terrorizing citizens” used in the Vietnam War would be effective today, listing a number of public protests in the region that occurred in response to attacks by NATO.
I feel that these two entries highlight just how much has changed in Afghanistan since the US began military operations, and whether the US can learn from its previous war experiences. They also highlight Yadav's blogging format, a combination of long detailed personal commentaries with occasional cross-posting of quotes and videos. He also sometimes draws from his previous discussions with other academics and comments on whether their hypotheses fit the current situation. At the same time, neither of these entries link to any sources to support his argument, which could be undermined if someone posts a counter-argument.
What I particularly like about Yadav's writing style, however, is his use of cultural references. He knows how to mix politics and pop culture. How many academics will use an episode from The Wire as a model for the Taliban organisational situation? Or describe a prominent, not-so-dearly-departed Taliban leader as “young and handsome (in a swashbuckling, Captain Jack Sparrow-ish sort of way)”? . It's a nice way to address potentially tricky topics.
I believe that Yadav’s approach to the topic of Afghanistan is close to mine, as he is using this blog to educate himself as well as disseminate the knowledge he already has to the general audience. In contrast to the dozens of blogs kept by military and civilian figures stationed in Afghanistan, whom have firsthand experience with the issues every day, Yadav is in my position: very interested in the subject matter and its significance, but having to rely on other sources first to inform ourselves. While his comes from an academic background, his blog appears to be written for a general informed but ignorant audience based on his use of more informal language and attempts to link the reader to the content using references they might be more familiar with. His analysis reflects the amount of research he has conducted without overtly pushing an agenda, and his style of writing engages the reader. On a final note, he makes an effort to encourage the audience to find other sources either through the links on his Twitter or his news sidebar.
My blog will probably (okay, definitely) not be as vivid and nuanced in its arguments due to our different academic levels, but his would not be a bad model to follow. If my blog is the developing zygote, Afghan Notebook is going to be the surrogate stepmother.
Voice Critique
It's all about the Voice.
No matter how accurate, interesting or informative a blog may be, it will not attract readership if the author does not have a compelling and engaging voice. Even a voice that touches a nerve is better than none.
I'm still working on mine, as you can probably tell. And thus I search for blogs whose authors can use their Voice (it's probably too important to be just a voice) particularly effectively, in the hope that I can glean some inspiration.
So what makes Ghosts of Alexander stand out? Well, as I said before, even the world's best academics will not get someone to read their writing unless they attempt to package it into something you want to read, or your professor forces you to read their writing because they happen to be the world's best academics.
Christian Bleuer, a PhD student in Central Asian Studies, makes an effort to avoid the dry, verbose manner often seen in academic journals, instead using concise sentences to make his point accessible, adopting a more conversational tone, and breaking up paragraphs into smaller ones when he can for easier reading. In addition, he uses a variety of media from other sources as a platform for his opinion, and thus we get a better sense of his voice by his use of personal pronouns, adverbs, imagery, and asides. In his case, the voice is particularly sardonic, regardless if he agrees or disagrees with the subject matter. Think David Mitchell if you're into Brit comedy, or House if you like American TV shows (starring a Brit comedian).
Consider his post “ISAF Colonel Swings a Dead Cat, Hits Another Colonel”, which promises to be interesting simply by the mangling of metaphor in the title (and the possibility that a dead cat might actually be involved, who knows). He then uses a pop culture reference in “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”, complete with a link to a video for those who don’t get it. While this post is quite short and doesn’t contain much of his own analysis after each block quote, the comments he does make succinctly inform us of what he thinks of the article: ”Well, that was candid. It sounds like the French civil service.” “My God, the next morning at work must have been so awkward.” Sounds snide out of context, but in this case he does support the colonel, calling him “one step away from being my choice for officer of the week.” He concludes the post with an embedded video (another pop culture reference) that cleverly poses a question for everyone.
And the majority of his posts follow this format. One can see a more diluted version (in terms of vitriol) in “The cost of an Afghan life is…?”, where he questions the evidence based on his own knowledge: “I don’t recall anything about punitive damages being higher based on ability of the liable party to pay.” There's that sarcasm again. At the same time, he makes us aware that it is wholly his own opinion. He doesn’t employ fire-and-brimstone rhetoric to convince others to accept his side, and accepts his limitations: “Of course, I’ll admit when I’m the wrong person to speak to.”
What I particularly enjoy about Christian’s writing is his use of a Socratic-like commentary, peppering his analysis with rhetorical questions to make one think about the issue at hand:
“Right, OK. Let’s just say A and B were somehow implemented – unlikely as it is – how does C work?”
Overall, Christian’s blog is a pretty thought-provoking read, and his combination of a conversational style with an overlay of sarcasm helps him make his point on a more informal level. Even if you may not agree with his point, even if you feel personally insulted by one of his points, even if you have no idea what on earth he’s referring to, he’s still got you thinking.
And with that, I continue my quest for my own Voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment