What do you think?
Rate this book
Afghanistan: Una storia politica e culturale
La storia di una delle piú instabili regioni del mondo, dal dominio della dinastia Moghul del XVI secolo fino alla rinascita talebana di oggi. Le lotte per il potere e la natura mutevole dell'autorità politica di un paese dai caratteri unici e tragicamente tornato d'attualità internazionale. Una lettura imprescindibile per capire come una terra conquistata e governata dagli stranieri per piú di mille anni poté diventare per inglesi, sovietici e americani la «tomba degli imperi».
Questa storia dell'Afghanistan intreccia geografia, politica, economia e cultura per descrivere le dinamiche interne e le relazioni col mondo esterno di una nazione estremamente complessa. Dopo aver illustrato la sconcertante diversità dei gruppi tribali ed etnici afghani - spiegando cosa li unisce nonostante le differenze regionali, culturali e politiche che li dividono - Thomas Barfield dimostra quanto per secoli sia stato relativamente facile governare tutti questi popoli quando il potere era concentrato in una piccola élite dinastica, e come questo fragile ordine politico sia poi crollato nel XIX e XX secolo, quando i governanti dell'Afghanistan mobilitarono le milizie rurali per espellere prima gli inglesi e poi i sovietici. L'insurrezione armata sbaragliò gli occupanti, ma minò l'autorità del governo afghano e rese il paese sempre piú ingovernabile. Le fazioni armate interne innescarono una guerra civile, dando origine al governo clericale dei talebani e all'isolamento dell'Afghanistan dal mondo. Barfield esamina infine i motivi per cui l'invasione americana, sulla scia dell'11 settembre, riuscí a rovesciare rapidamente i talebani e perché quella facile vittoria fece credere agli Stati Uniti che fosse altrettanto facile costruire un nuovo stato.
Questa storia dell'Afghanistan intreccia geografia, politica, economia e cultura per descrivere le dinamiche interne e le relazioni col mondo esterno di una nazione estremamente complessa. Dopo aver illustrato la sconcertante diversità dei gruppi tribali ed etnici afghani - spiegando cosa li unisce nonostante le differenze regionali, culturali e politiche che li dividono - Thomas Barfield dimostra quanto per secoli sia stato relativamente facile governare tutti questi popoli quando il potere era concentrato in una piccola élite dinastica, e come questo fragile ordine politico sia poi crollato nel XIX e XX secolo, quando i governanti dell'Afghanistan mobilitarono le milizie rurali per espellere prima gli inglesi e poi i sovietici. L'insurrezione armata sbaragliò gli occupanti, ma minò l'autorità del governo afghano e rese il paese sempre piú ingovernabile. Le fazioni armate interne innescarono una guerra civile, dando origine al governo clericale dei talebani e all'isolamento dell'Afghanistan dal mondo. Barfield esamina infine i motivi per cui l'invasione americana, sulla scia dell'11 settembre, riuscí a rovesciare rapidamente i talebani e perché quella facile vittoria fece credere agli Stati Uniti che fosse altrettanto facile costruire un nuovo stato.
663 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 10, 2010
356 people are currently reading
4162 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Barfield
9 books30 followersThomas Barfield is a social anthropologist who conducted extensive ethnographic fieldwork among pastoral nomads in northern Afghanistan in the mid 1970s and shorter periods of research in Xinjiang, China and post-Soviet Central Asia. He is the author of The Central Asian Arabs of Afghanistan (1981), The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China (1989) and Afghanistan: An Atlas of Indigenous Domestic Architecture (1991). After 2001 his research returned to Afghanistan, focusing on law, government organization and economic development issues on which he has written extensively. In 2006 he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship that led to the publication of Afghanistan: A cultural and political history (2010), a book that received an outstanding title award for American Library Association in 2011. He has served as President of the American Institute for Afghanistan Studies since 2005. His forthcoming book, Shadow Empires, explores how distinctly different types empires arose and sustained themselves as the dominant polities of Eurasia and North Africa for 2500 years before disappearing in the 20th century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
July 21, 2025
This is a great reference tool and overview of Afghanistan. The author presented the information clearly and concisely. The information was not detail-overkill and was given in a non-biased manner. Everything was mentioned to help someone who has little to no knowledge about this rough and tough country. The author opened with the culture: languages, ethnic groups, tribal organization was very helpful as a starter. The history and political portion was great in my opinion. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the recent Afghanistan debacle. Thanks!
March 14, 2024
عنوان کتاب به خوبی موضوع کتاب رو توضیح میده. نویسنده تو این کتاب تاریخ چند صد سال گذشته افغانستان رو بررسی میکنه و همزمان به جنبه های فرهنگی و اجتماعی که شکل دهنده سیاست افغانستان امروزی هستند هم می پردازه. کتاب همزمان که یک اثر درباره تاریخ افغانستانه، یک تحلیل فرهنگی و اجتماعی کامل هم ارائه میده و باوجود اینکه پر از جزییاته، کاملا قابل فهم و روان نوشته شده. درواقع نویسنده با ارجاع بسیار به ابن خلدون، به خواننده توضیح میده که چی شد که افغانستان این شد. چی شد که افغانستان روی آسایش بلند مدت رو نمیبینه، چرا با وجود نبودن دولت مرکزی قدرتمند، همیشه قبرستان امپراطوری ها شده، چرا روابط دولت-ملت در افغانستان با کشورهای همسایش فرق داره و چرا نمیشه مدل و سیر تحولات کشورهای غربی رو داخل افغانستان پیاده کرد.
خود نویسنده چند سال در افغانستان زندگی کرده و تحلیلهای خیلی جالبی درباره اقوام مختلف افغانستان و نقش پررنگشون در تاریخ و اجتماع کشور ارائه میده.
منتها از اونجایی که کتاب برای دهه اول قرن بیست و یکه، یکم توصیفاتی که از نحوه زندگی جامعه امروزی افغانستان ارائه میده نیاز به بروز شدن داره.
پ.ن: اینقدر سیر تاریخی افغانستان برای من آشنائه که فقط کافی بود اسم های شخصیت های تاریخی افغانستان رو با شخصیت های تاریخی ایرانی عوض میکردم و بنگ!! انگار مشغول خوندن تاریخ معاصر ایران بودم. الحق که تاریخ خودش رو تکرار میکنه.
خود نویسنده چند سال در افغانستان زندگی کرده و تحلیلهای خیلی جالبی درباره اقوام مختلف افغانستان و نقش پررنگشون در تاریخ و اجتماع کشور ارائه میده.
منتها از اونجایی که کتاب برای دهه اول قرن بیست و یکه، یکم توصیفاتی که از نحوه زندگی جامعه امروزی افغانستان ارائه میده نیاز به بروز شدن داره.
پ.ن: اینقدر سیر تاریخی افغانستان برای من آشنائه که فقط کافی بود اسم های شخصیت های تاریخی افغانستان رو با شخصیت های تاریخی ایرانی عوض میکردم و بنگ!! انگار مشغول خوندن تاریخ معاصر ایران بودم. الحق که تاریخ خودش رو تکرار میکنه.
November 13, 2020
I read one book about Afghanistan annually, and found this one to be among the most informative. I'd long understood that Afghanistan never quite fit into other categories--too far east to be in the Middle East, too southern to be in Central Asia, too northern to be part of South Asia--but it had not fully sunk into me the extent to which Afghanistan has served as a buffer state between neighboring powers. Persians, India, and Russia being the main but not the only ones over the centuries.
Relatedly, I did not appreciate how the old Afghan heads of state, particularly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, tended to partner with one of the neighboring powers (most often the British via India) and fall under their foreign policy umbrella in exchange for copious aid money. These arrangements also helped the Afghan leaders domestically because it meant a lighter tax burden on the population and increased the subjects' political acceptance of the king.
I also learned about the Swiss cheese model of nationhood/governance. Imagine a map of a country governed by a king. Then imagine that there are bands of isolated people in the mountains or other remote places that basically keep to themselves and do not live along major routes. These are like the holes in Swiss cheese. The old Afghan chiefs and kings recognized that, and were content not to have 100 percent overlordship of each little pocket of territory. They understood that that's what Swiss cheese looks like.
The book also debunks the myth that the country has always been in a state of war. That has been true since the 1970s but before that there were long stretches of decades when the country was at peace. The real problems started when Afghan Communists took over and then the Soviets invaded to prop them up, destroying opposition political parties and setting the stage (once the Soviet Union could no longer aid Afghanistan) for a power vacuum to be filled in the 1990s by Pakistan-backed jihadists.
The early sections of the book helped show that the concept of splitting the country apart into smaller countries along ethnic lines is as unlikely as it is inadvisable. There's a lot of demographic overlap and blurring throughout the country, and that's never really been the driving force behind the "ungovernability" of Afghanistan. The issue seems to be more that people in the countryside resent it when some muckety muck in Kabul tries to tell them how to live their lives.
The format and tone of the book could have stood some improvement. A lot of instruction about journalism and nonfiction writing tells authors to assume that their audience is intelligent but uninformed. But in this book the writer seems to assume historical knowledge about Afghanistan that I simply did not have. Sometimes I wished it would have started out a chapter with a straightforward, linear description of how a particular king rose and fell from power. But there tended to be some jumping around and explanations of trends over dynasties, so it could be a little annoying to follow.
The book was pretty much stuck to the facts when describing the foreign policy of Disraeli and Brezhnev. But once we get to the 2000s there was a lot of negative opinion and ascribing of motives to Bush. At that point the book became more assertion-based than fact-based.
Relatedly, I did not appreciate how the old Afghan heads of state, particularly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, tended to partner with one of the neighboring powers (most often the British via India) and fall under their foreign policy umbrella in exchange for copious aid money. These arrangements also helped the Afghan leaders domestically because it meant a lighter tax burden on the population and increased the subjects' political acceptance of the king.
I also learned about the Swiss cheese model of nationhood/governance. Imagine a map of a country governed by a king. Then imagine that there are bands of isolated people in the mountains or other remote places that basically keep to themselves and do not live along major routes. These are like the holes in Swiss cheese. The old Afghan chiefs and kings recognized that, and were content not to have 100 percent overlordship of each little pocket of territory. They understood that that's what Swiss cheese looks like.
The book also debunks the myth that the country has always been in a state of war. That has been true since the 1970s but before that there were long stretches of decades when the country was at peace. The real problems started when Afghan Communists took over and then the Soviets invaded to prop them up, destroying opposition political parties and setting the stage (once the Soviet Union could no longer aid Afghanistan) for a power vacuum to be filled in the 1990s by Pakistan-backed jihadists.
The early sections of the book helped show that the concept of splitting the country apart into smaller countries along ethnic lines is as unlikely as it is inadvisable. There's a lot of demographic overlap and blurring throughout the country, and that's never really been the driving force behind the "ungovernability" of Afghanistan. The issue seems to be more that people in the countryside resent it when some muckety muck in Kabul tries to tell them how to live their lives.
The format and tone of the book could have stood some improvement. A lot of instruction about journalism and nonfiction writing tells authors to assume that their audience is intelligent but uninformed. But in this book the writer seems to assume historical knowledge about Afghanistan that I simply did not have. Sometimes I wished it would have started out a chapter with a straightforward, linear description of how a particular king rose and fell from power. But there tended to be some jumping around and explanations of trends over dynasties, so it could be a little annoying to follow.
The book was pretty much stuck to the facts when describing the foreign policy of Disraeli and Brezhnev. But once we get to the 2000s there was a lot of negative opinion and ascribing of motives to Bush. At that point the book became more assertion-based than fact-based.
February 15, 2022
3.5 stars.
Review to follow
Review to follow
July 11, 2011
Thomas Barfield is an anthropologist and professor of anthropology at Princeton whose experiences in Afghanistan stretch back to the 1960s, when he travelled overland through the country as a student. He began ethnographic field studies there in the 1970s and witnessed the overthrow of the Afghan King Zahir Shah in 1973.
In his own words "Critics of the university tenure system undoubtedly put me among those useless faculty who purveyed esoteric and irrelevant knowledge to the young wihtout fear of termination. Wise policymakers had already determined that such remote places and people could be safely excluded from America's New World Order. . . . On September 11, 2001, Afghanistan suddenly became relevant" and Barfield became one of the few Americans who had the intimate knowledge of the country, its people and its history that we so desperately needed.
Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History is a broad overview of the history of Afghanistan and its culture. For a reader like myself, who reads the New York Times daily and a couple of other works on the country, namely Rory Stewart's The Places In Between and thinks they know everything, this book was a much needed corrective to my cultural biases, misunderstandings and creative ignorance of the country that we went to war with almost ten years ago. Afghanistan is blessedly well organized, with a clear goal set out in the introduction: to answer for the reader the following questions:
1. How did Afghanistan, which was overrun and ruled by a series of foreign dynasties for more than a thousand years, become renowned as the "graveyard of empires" in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries after forcing the withdrawal of both the British and Russians in a series of wars?
2. Why did the U.S. invasion of 2001 that toppled the Taliban not immediately set off a similar national insurgency (as it did in Iraq), and despite that, still fail to bring stability to the country?
3. Why have foreign attempts to change Afghanistan's politics, social structures, and government proved so ineffective?
4. How did a ruling dynasty established in 1747 manage to hold power over such a fractious people until 1978, and why has the afghan state since them experienced such difficulties in reestablishing a legitimate political order?
5. Why did a country for which the term"Balkanized" appeared ideally suited show so few signs of disintegration as a national state in spite of its many divisions?
6. How and why have splits in Afghan society since the 1920s over the structure of government and its policies led to so many periods of state collapse?
The chapter on the American-led invasion of Afghanistan was particularly enlightening. There are so many cliches about Afghanistan - that it can't be governed effectively because of its warring tribal factions won't allow it, the belief that it would become a new Yugoslavia, fracturing along ethnic lines that its history is one of constant insurgency and the belief that the country is mired in a medieval mindset are all simply untrue. Barfield demonstrates for the reader that Afghanistans long political history gives the lie to these suppositions and shows how a Western mindset regarding political intstitutions might lead us to believe them anyway.
I have two small gripes:1. There are typos. I feel like an academic press shouldn't have any 'teh's in their text. 2. There isn't much cultural history here. While I disagree with other reviewers who say that this is a dry read, I will add that it is an extremely dense one, packed with a lot of information in a relatively small number of pages. With that said, however, I highly highly recommend this book for anyone looking to educate themselves on Afghanistan's history and its current political climate. As Barfield says in his closing, Afghanistan is becoming more than just a backwater where the US fought the Taliban; with its rich mineral deposits and border with Pakistan (a soon-to-be-failed state with nuclear capabilities. Aside: I am scared shitless by Pakistan.) and other central Asian powers like Iran, Afghanistan will continue to be a focus of international interest for generations to come. I have, through reading this book, gained a tremendous amount of respect for Afghanistan and its people. I wish the country the best and hope that the US, Russia, China, India and whoever else can behave themselves there and work with the Afghan people to achieve the rich future that they deserve.
In his own words "Critics of the university tenure system undoubtedly put me among those useless faculty who purveyed esoteric and irrelevant knowledge to the young wihtout fear of termination. Wise policymakers had already determined that such remote places and people could be safely excluded from America's New World Order. . . . On September 11, 2001, Afghanistan suddenly became relevant" and Barfield became one of the few Americans who had the intimate knowledge of the country, its people and its history that we so desperately needed.
Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History is a broad overview of the history of Afghanistan and its culture. For a reader like myself, who reads the New York Times daily and a couple of other works on the country, namely Rory Stewart's The Places In Between and thinks they know everything, this book was a much needed corrective to my cultural biases, misunderstandings and creative ignorance of the country that we went to war with almost ten years ago. Afghanistan is blessedly well organized, with a clear goal set out in the introduction: to answer for the reader the following questions:
1. How did Afghanistan, which was overrun and ruled by a series of foreign dynasties for more than a thousand years, become renowned as the "graveyard of empires" in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries after forcing the withdrawal of both the British and Russians in a series of wars?
2. Why did the U.S. invasion of 2001 that toppled the Taliban not immediately set off a similar national insurgency (as it did in Iraq), and despite that, still fail to bring stability to the country?
3. Why have foreign attempts to change Afghanistan's politics, social structures, and government proved so ineffective?
4. How did a ruling dynasty established in 1747 manage to hold power over such a fractious people until 1978, and why has the afghan state since them experienced such difficulties in reestablishing a legitimate political order?
5. Why did a country for which the term"Balkanized" appeared ideally suited show so few signs of disintegration as a national state in spite of its many divisions?
6. How and why have splits in Afghan society since the 1920s over the structure of government and its policies led to so many periods of state collapse?
The chapter on the American-led invasion of Afghanistan was particularly enlightening. There are so many cliches about Afghanistan - that it can't be governed effectively because of its warring tribal factions won't allow it, the belief that it would become a new Yugoslavia, fracturing along ethnic lines that its history is one of constant insurgency and the belief that the country is mired in a medieval mindset are all simply untrue. Barfield demonstrates for the reader that Afghanistans long political history gives the lie to these suppositions and shows how a Western mindset regarding political intstitutions might lead us to believe them anyway.
I have two small gripes:1. There are typos. I feel like an academic press shouldn't have any 'teh's in their text. 2. There isn't much cultural history here. While I disagree with other reviewers who say that this is a dry read, I will add that it is an extremely dense one, packed with a lot of information in a relatively small number of pages. With that said, however, I highly highly recommend this book for anyone looking to educate themselves on Afghanistan's history and its current political climate. As Barfield says in his closing, Afghanistan is becoming more than just a backwater where the US fought the Taliban; with its rich mineral deposits and border with Pakistan (a soon-to-be-failed state with nuclear capabilities. Aside: I am scared shitless by Pakistan.) and other central Asian powers like Iran, Afghanistan will continue to be a focus of international interest for generations to come. I have, through reading this book, gained a tremendous amount of respect for Afghanistan and its people. I wish the country the best and hope that the US, Russia, China, India and whoever else can behave themselves there and work with the Afghan people to achieve the rich future that they deserve.
May 23, 2018
I was assigned this book for a class I took, Development and Change in Iraq and Afghanistan with a great professor, and I could not recommend this book ENOUGH for how much it taught me about recent Afghan history, the impact of the U.S. intervention, and the nuances of Afghan identity and cultural history.
It's a seriously comprehensive, thoroughly researched and very readable book, and definitely a must-read for people who are interested in learning more about Afghanistan.
It's a seriously comprehensive, thoroughly researched and very readable book, and definitely a must-read for people who are interested in learning more about Afghanistan.
September 28, 2024
A concise yet sweeping history of Afghanistan and its political history. It is DENSE. Probably the most thorough history book I’ve read that zooms in on one country but covers such a broad expanse of time.
Because he is an anthropologist and not a historian, Barfield was more willing to arrive at his own conclusions and interpret recent events than a historian would be. I greatly appreciated him taking the risk of being “wrong” in the long term in order to give the reader a more up to date view. Even if his predictions or reading of trends end up being “inaccurate,” this text felt worthwhile and immensely detailed for its breadth of topics and the timespan it covers. Something tells me that the themes he highlighted and predictions he made will, like Afghanistan, stand the test of time.
Themes that fascinated me:
- On a larger scale of time, Afghanistan has been a part of many different empires with many different origins and ethnicities of leaders. On a smaller scale of time - the last 200 years - although never colonized, the country has been invaded by many different empires and for many different reasons. While transiently ruled, the country has not been “in chaos” until the last 50 years.
- What’s more, although a perennial battlefield, these conflicts have created a resilience and pockets of unity in the Afghan people as unique and special as the country itself.
- The cyclical nature and power-perception-politics of Afghanistan are fascinating to read about, and seem to be deeply rooted in the country’s diverse political landscape
- The relationship of Afghanistan’s many peoples with its historical ruling elite, and how that ruling elite has been warped and changed by conflict.
- Western ignorance of Afghanistan’s culture and history has only ever exacerbated the political situation in the country
- The rise of the Taliban and their cultural disconnect with Afghanistan itself. I am very interested to learn about the differences in the Taliban pre-2001, and their current situation / regime.
Favorite quotes:
“Afghanistan is one of those places in the world in which people who know the least make the most definitive statements about it.”
“The Americans, never great students of Afghan history, failed to ask themselves what kind of leader could survive their withdrawal.”
“… all the resistance needed to do was to make the country ungovernable and a drain on Soviet resources. By the mid-1980s, the Soviets came to the same conclusion that the British had reached a century earlier: the direct occupation of Afghanistan had a high cost for few benefits.”
“The arrival of the United States in Afghanistan to expel the Taliban marked the fourth time in 160 years that a foreign power put troops on the ground there. But while the British in the nineteenth century invaded with plans to replace the existing regimes, and the Soviets invaded in the twentieth to preserve the one they supported, the United States invaded Afghanistan at a time when the state structure had ceased to function. It would need to create a new state to restore stability in the country.”
“That one can blame the architects for a building’s collapse is cold comfort for those who lost homes and loved ones as a result.”
Because he is an anthropologist and not a historian, Barfield was more willing to arrive at his own conclusions and interpret recent events than a historian would be. I greatly appreciated him taking the risk of being “wrong” in the long term in order to give the reader a more up to date view. Even if his predictions or reading of trends end up being “inaccurate,” this text felt worthwhile and immensely detailed for its breadth of topics and the timespan it covers. Something tells me that the themes he highlighted and predictions he made will, like Afghanistan, stand the test of time.
Themes that fascinated me:
- On a larger scale of time, Afghanistan has been a part of many different empires with many different origins and ethnicities of leaders. On a smaller scale of time - the last 200 years - although never colonized, the country has been invaded by many different empires and for many different reasons. While transiently ruled, the country has not been “in chaos” until the last 50 years.
- What’s more, although a perennial battlefield, these conflicts have created a resilience and pockets of unity in the Afghan people as unique and special as the country itself.
- The cyclical nature and power-perception-politics of Afghanistan are fascinating to read about, and seem to be deeply rooted in the country’s diverse political landscape
- The relationship of Afghanistan’s many peoples with its historical ruling elite, and how that ruling elite has been warped and changed by conflict.
- Western ignorance of Afghanistan’s culture and history has only ever exacerbated the political situation in the country
- The rise of the Taliban and their cultural disconnect with Afghanistan itself. I am very interested to learn about the differences in the Taliban pre-2001, and their current situation / regime.
Favorite quotes:
“Afghanistan is one of those places in the world in which people who know the least make the most definitive statements about it.”
“The Americans, never great students of Afghan history, failed to ask themselves what kind of leader could survive their withdrawal.”
“… all the resistance needed to do was to make the country ungovernable and a drain on Soviet resources. By the mid-1980s, the Soviets came to the same conclusion that the British had reached a century earlier: the direct occupation of Afghanistan had a high cost for few benefits.”
“The arrival of the United States in Afghanistan to expel the Taliban marked the fourth time in 160 years that a foreign power put troops on the ground there. But while the British in the nineteenth century invaded with plans to replace the existing regimes, and the Soviets invaded in the twentieth to preserve the one they supported, the United States invaded Afghanistan at a time when the state structure had ceased to function. It would need to create a new state to restore stability in the country.”
“That one can blame the architects for a building’s collapse is cold comfort for those who lost homes and loved ones as a result.”
July 27, 2010
Ever since The Kite Runner, A Thousand Splendid Suns, and Three Cups of Tea, I’ve found Afghanistan to be a strangely compelling region. In those books, there was a different sense of the humanity of the people compared to what is seen on the nightly news, and it was difficult to align the two in my mind. Mention Afghanistan to someone and all they usually come up with is the notorious Taliban or the crumbling ruins that appear on the news. How accurate is that image?
When I first received Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History, I hoped to find that answer and at the same time, that the book wouldn’t be too dry or heavy on political rhetoric. I was pleased to find that it’s an incredibly readable history book that makes the subject understandable and reveals the complicated lives of the people of Afghanistan. The author manages to compile the history without a political agenda or motive.
First off is recognizing that culturally, Afghanistan is made up of both tribal and nontribal ethnic groups. These groups mean everything to the people, and unlike some cultures, “tribal and ethnic groups take primacy over the individual.” In other words, “individuals support decisions made by their group even when such support has negative consequences for themselves.” This is a somewhat unique trait, and contributes to the devotion many have for their leaders. They also have an intense oral history that is repeated through the ages that also creates a sense of cohesiveness between past and present. These people live in a land crisscrossed by history, from Genghis Khan to Alexander the Great (see the photo of his castle above right). It was conflict between tribal regions, a civil war, that made the ordinary Afghan people eager to have the US come in to intervene with the Taliban, as “a drowning person is not too picky about who throws him a line….Afghanistan had either been ignored or abused by the outside world as it descended into chaos.”
The Taliban, known for their desire to spread extremely conservative Islam, had riddled the nation with violence towards women and other religions. They’ve managed to alienate even those countries that were providing needed humanitarian aid. They do not have the support of the ‘ordinary’ citizen, as at times the Taliban members have numbered below 150 members. A good portion of the book deals with how and why the Taliban gained such power. Another portion discusses the occupation by Britain and Soviet Russia prior to more recent actions with the US.
The historical details are interesting, but it was the smaller things that were more revealing. For example, why is it that on the news you usually see only children or old people? Their hardscrabble lives, tending outdoors to agriculture and focused on manual labor, shows up on their faces and they appear prematurely aged. Are the devastated streets of broken concrete typical? Actually no, as the majority of citizens live in small villages far from urban areas such as Kabul. Is it just a land of dust and opium poppies? No again, as stone fruit, grapes, nuts, citrus fruits, melons, and rice are grown in different parts of the country, depending on what areas are irrigated. The famous mountainous region, known to have been a hiding place for bin Laden, is in the center of Afghanistan. Its steepness creates dynamic changes in climate in just a few hours of travel, and creates a diverse variety of crops.
The current situation in Afghanistan is covered in the sixth chapter, where Barfield addresses the complicated social concerns that continually plague the country. The resurgence of the Taliban and their religious ideology reverses social progress, while modern policies want to focus on reducing the religious power of clerics. Additional goals include establishing rights for women, tolerance of non-Muslim faiths, implementing educational policies, and modernizing archaic laws to better represent the desires of the majority.
When I first received Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History, I hoped to find that answer and at the same time, that the book wouldn’t be too dry or heavy on political rhetoric. I was pleased to find that it’s an incredibly readable history book that makes the subject understandable and reveals the complicated lives of the people of Afghanistan. The author manages to compile the history without a political agenda or motive.
First off is recognizing that culturally, Afghanistan is made up of both tribal and nontribal ethnic groups. These groups mean everything to the people, and unlike some cultures, “tribal and ethnic groups take primacy over the individual.” In other words, “individuals support decisions made by their group even when such support has negative consequences for themselves.” This is a somewhat unique trait, and contributes to the devotion many have for their leaders. They also have an intense oral history that is repeated through the ages that also creates a sense of cohesiveness between past and present. These people live in a land crisscrossed by history, from Genghis Khan to Alexander the Great (see the photo of his castle above right). It was conflict between tribal regions, a civil war, that made the ordinary Afghan people eager to have the US come in to intervene with the Taliban, as “a drowning person is not too picky about who throws him a line….Afghanistan had either been ignored or abused by the outside world as it descended into chaos.”
The Taliban, known for their desire to spread extremely conservative Islam, had riddled the nation with violence towards women and other religions. They’ve managed to alienate even those countries that were providing needed humanitarian aid. They do not have the support of the ‘ordinary’ citizen, as at times the Taliban members have numbered below 150 members. A good portion of the book deals with how and why the Taliban gained such power. Another portion discusses the occupation by Britain and Soviet Russia prior to more recent actions with the US.
The historical details are interesting, but it was the smaller things that were more revealing. For example, why is it that on the news you usually see only children or old people? Their hardscrabble lives, tending outdoors to agriculture and focused on manual labor, shows up on their faces and they appear prematurely aged. Are the devastated streets of broken concrete typical? Actually no, as the majority of citizens live in small villages far from urban areas such as Kabul. Is it just a land of dust and opium poppies? No again, as stone fruit, grapes, nuts, citrus fruits, melons, and rice are grown in different parts of the country, depending on what areas are irrigated. The famous mountainous region, known to have been a hiding place for bin Laden, is in the center of Afghanistan. Its steepness creates dynamic changes in climate in just a few hours of travel, and creates a diverse variety of crops.
The current situation in Afghanistan is covered in the sixth chapter, where Barfield addresses the complicated social concerns that continually plague the country. The resurgence of the Taliban and their religious ideology reverses social progress, while modern policies want to focus on reducing the religious power of clerics. Additional goals include establishing rights for women, tolerance of non-Muslim faiths, implementing educational policies, and modernizing archaic laws to better represent the desires of the majority.
September 5, 2021
"Afghanistan is one of those places in the world in which people who know the least make the most definitive statements about it." (p.274) - In this book Thomas Barfield successfully explodes quite a few vaguely-held preconceptions I had about Afghanistan. As someone who isn't especially well-read on Afghanistan, I felt this book did an excellent job of combining a narrative history with unusually insightful and penetrating analysis. And what with the (re-)fall of Kabul to the Taliban, now seemed like a good time to brush up on the subject.
Published in 2010, this book has aged exceptionally well and Barfield's analysis totally holds up. In many respects this book anticipates and shed's some historical perspective on the present moment. For example: "Leaders and regimes in Afghanistan never declined gradually but fell almost instantaneously when their ability to maintain themselves in power became uncertain." (p.332) - Barfield goes on to describe the Afghan government of the day thusly: "a regime that would not survive a week if left to the mercies of such allies without international support" - recent events would seem to corroborate Barfield's reading of Afghan history, to put it mildly.
For me, Barfield successfully argues against the common wisdom regarding Afghanistan on the following points:
1. Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan has hardly been either ungovernable or continually insurrection-plagued for most of the past millennium - or even the last century.
2. Afghanistan was never on the verge of a Yugoslavia-style break-up along ethnic lines which would have argued for the strong centralized government which Afghanistan ultimately got after 2001.
3. Insurrection and resistance against US/NATO was not only not inevitable, but in fact conspicuously didn't materialize in the years immediately after 2001.
4. Now largely forgotten and underappreciated (at least by me), after the USSR withdrawal, their client regime the PDPA managed to re-brand itself as a less Communist, more Nationalist movement and in fact managed to quite effectively hold on to power for the next four years after the withdrawal, it was the collapse of the USSR and the cessation of the aid it provided that lead to the end of the regime.
5. Not really an argument, but just something very interesting: some of members of the more radical wing of the Afghan Communists ultimately joined up with the Taliban - talk about ideological flexibility!
All that aside, Barfield convincingly argues that a more decentralized federal system would have better suited Afghanistan than the highly centralized one which they ultimately got - which I found to be an interesting argument that I hadn't heard before in the Afghan context. He also explains the significance of clan-relations to Afghan governance in a fairly comprehensible way.
In the final analysis, aside from really illuminating some of the deeper, slower historical forces which have been at work in Afghanistan, Barfield pretty convincingly suggests the existence of a much more successful path-not-taken immediately after the 2001 ousting of the Taliban - which might seem like a bit of a moot point now, but which I think holds some valuable lessons for humanitarian/state-building efforts elsewhere.
While I did feel like the sections covering the causes of the British engagements in Afghanistan were a little rushed and perfunctory - they had nowhere near the clarity and depth-of-analysis which the earlier and latter parts of the book had, in my opinion - all in all I would say this book is excellent and I highly recommend it to anyone hoping to learn about Afghanistan and how it came to be the way it is.
Published in 2010, this book has aged exceptionally well and Barfield's analysis totally holds up. In many respects this book anticipates and shed's some historical perspective on the present moment. For example: "Leaders and regimes in Afghanistan never declined gradually but fell almost instantaneously when their ability to maintain themselves in power became uncertain." (p.332) - Barfield goes on to describe the Afghan government of the day thusly: "a regime that would not survive a week if left to the mercies of such allies without international support" - recent events would seem to corroborate Barfield's reading of Afghan history, to put it mildly.
For me, Barfield successfully argues against the common wisdom regarding Afghanistan on the following points:
1. Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan has hardly been either ungovernable or continually insurrection-plagued for most of the past millennium - or even the last century.
2. Afghanistan was never on the verge of a Yugoslavia-style break-up along ethnic lines which would have argued for the strong centralized government which Afghanistan ultimately got after 2001.
3. Insurrection and resistance against US/NATO was not only not inevitable, but in fact conspicuously didn't materialize in the years immediately after 2001.
4. Now largely forgotten and underappreciated (at least by me), after the USSR withdrawal, their client regime the PDPA managed to re-brand itself as a less Communist, more Nationalist movement and in fact managed to quite effectively hold on to power for the next four years after the withdrawal, it was the collapse of the USSR and the cessation of the aid it provided that lead to the end of the regime.
5. Not really an argument, but just something very interesting: some of members of the more radical wing of the Afghan Communists ultimately joined up with the Taliban - talk about ideological flexibility!
All that aside, Barfield convincingly argues that a more decentralized federal system would have better suited Afghanistan than the highly centralized one which they ultimately got - which I found to be an interesting argument that I hadn't heard before in the Afghan context. He also explains the significance of clan-relations to Afghan governance in a fairly comprehensible way.
In the final analysis, aside from really illuminating some of the deeper, slower historical forces which have been at work in Afghanistan, Barfield pretty convincingly suggests the existence of a much more successful path-not-taken immediately after the 2001 ousting of the Taliban - which might seem like a bit of a moot point now, but which I think holds some valuable lessons for humanitarian/state-building efforts elsewhere.
While I did feel like the sections covering the causes of the British engagements in Afghanistan were a little rushed and perfunctory - they had nowhere near the clarity and depth-of-analysis which the earlier and latter parts of the book had, in my opinion - all in all I would say this book is excellent and I highly recommend it to anyone hoping to learn about Afghanistan and how it came to be the way it is.
May 13, 2012
Excellent study by an scholar who actually lived in Afghanistan for a long time. Love his use of Medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun. His work is detailed, but his writing is very readable. His discussion of ethnic groupings is excellent as is his analysis of the situation there now. Wish our politicos would read this book.
September 22, 2019
Overall, an excellent and insightful glimpse through some of the misconceptions surrounding this country of unlikely significance.
September 24, 2019
This was my first experiment listening to an audio book on my commute to work, and I am happy to say I survived without problems! Robin Bloodworth is a fantastic narrator, who manages to navigate through complex Afghan names (some patchwork due to corrections is audible) and manages to make a relatively dry book an interesting listen.
As a history of Afghanistan, this book is solid. That said, the balance between the cultural and political sides of history is heavily on the political side, which is a pity, for culturally (apart from history being dominated by religious concerns) there is much more to say about Afghanistan. Also, oddly, the role of foreign influences in Afghanistan, such as the CIA support in the rise of the Taliban, is mysteriously missing or only touched on in a general sense.
I actually became mesmerised with Afghanistan by the 2001 movie Kandahar by Mohsen Makhmalbaf and have been waiting for an opportunity to visit ever since. The current situation in the country has sadly made that impossible. I'll take this book as some consolation for not being able to go there.
As a history of Afghanistan, this book is solid. That said, the balance between the cultural and political sides of history is heavily on the political side, which is a pity, for culturally (apart from history being dominated by religious concerns) there is much more to say about Afghanistan. Also, oddly, the role of foreign influences in Afghanistan, such as the CIA support in the rise of the Taliban, is mysteriously missing or only touched on in a general sense.
I actually became mesmerised with Afghanistan by the 2001 movie Kandahar by Mohsen Makhmalbaf and have been waiting for an opportunity to visit ever since. The current situation in the country has sadly made that impossible. I'll take this book as some consolation for not being able to go there.
February 8, 2020
Wholly appreciate the different perspective of this book, written by an anthropologist with extensive experience in Afghanistan. It's easy to get bogged down in millennia of history, constant invasions or occupations, internal intrigue, and wind up with an impression that Afghanistan is a place to which military things happen, the end. Yeah, there's plenty of war and intrigue to go around still, but this book does a wonderful job of zooming out to understand the social, cultural, ethnic dynamics that generate and influence the politics (and fighting). If you're diving into Afghan history, I think this really is a great primer to start with; it will breathe much more sense and understanding into your read of more unruly histories down the road.
December 27, 2021
This book was structured really well. I enjoyed learning about the history and culture of Afghanistan. By opening up with background on the different ethnic groups, languages, and religions, the author set a tone for understanding some of the actions that took place in Afghanistan’s current history.
June 26, 2021
A must read for anyone seeking an introduction into the distant and recent past of the country to better comprehend present events and the trajectories Afghanistan's future heads along
April 17, 2023
A Marine friend of mine who served in Afghanistan and advocated strongly for his interpreter suggested this book to me so I could have a better understanding of this country that brought so much grief to other nations and their own citizens. It vastly increased my understanding of the country beyond the conflicts during the past three decades that I often read about. Barfield’s anthropology training definitely helped look at the bones of this country, allowing us to better understand the recent conflicts and what our leaders got wrong.
The country is extremely complex. The land locked country’s boarders are entirely by chance, splitting up communities. The country was always pressed with the Soviet Union on one side, Pakistan on the other, and Brittan always expressing their personal interest. The people from this poor, under-developed country was often pressed by all sides and ended up as a division between east and west, a fight between Western and Soviet views with a mixture of Muslim culture more pressing for most people in the county, people in the large rural areas.
The population are just an estimate since rural living and war has stopped an accurate count. It was never colonized so the country never had the true influence of another country or any growth of literacy or education. People are moving to larger cities, especially when so many left the country for the first time and experienced life outside their own village for the first time. Population has remained fairly stable due to the short life expediency of citizens with a “demographic profile typical of a premodern society which a high birthrate was matched by a high death rate,” as the author explained.
While there are many ethnic groups – Pashtuns (40%), Tajiks (30%), Hazaras(15%), Uzbeks (maybe 5%), Turkmen (another maybe 5%), Aimaqs, Nuristanis, Baluch, and some much smaller ones – the politics of Afghanistan are tired directly to Afghan cultural and religious values. Most of the population are still deeply rural, tied loosely to larger towns but their connection is their own family, village, and tribe. It’s more social than political. Almost all in Afghanistan are Muslims with Sunni’s making up the majority (roughly 85%) and a majority Shias and Ismailis. While the government is fought deeply in Kabul, the outcome has fairly small impact on the rural areas of town. The author pointed out that while the rural areas were more separated from the city and had different cultural identities, the villagers were dependent on relations with urban markets for many good. The federal government had to go through local leaders who had the reputation to be effective mediators and resolve differences, not because they represent national government but because they were local people.
In so many ways, Afghanistan has been a punching bag since the start of the 1900’s. While citizens fought against the threat from foreigners – Brittan, repeated Soviet Union threats, then the United States, they also suffered from their own governments. Non-Muslim foreigners are viewed as inferior to Afghans, even infidels, allowing people to join together despite their ethnic group to oppose foreign leadership. And, religion was the best way to unite the people of Afghanistan against others trying to impose their government on the people. Sadly, for 100 years, every leader was either slaughtered at home or forced to leave the country to save themselves.
There were repeated wars against Colonist attempts with the country winning the Third Anglo-Afghan War in April 1919 by bringing together the conservative religious groups against the British. These repeated victories increase the status of the country, especially in the Muslim world. Within a half dozen years, there was resistance within the country to taxation, draft to the military and changes to family life that went against their religion, especially liberal treatment of women. Issues that are in the news today – especially educating girls and wearing of veils – was relaxed because the clergy objected.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan at the end of December 1979 thinking they could withdraw their troops after a few months, like they did in Czechoslovakia. But the turf and thinking was different and the occupation lasted a decade, causing one million deaths of Afghans, the migration of four million refugees, and drew in the United States and Saudi Arabia to spend a billion dollars to arm the other side. Conversely, the Soviets were spending five billion a year – and losing. The Taliban gained strength and when the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States did not have interest and the Taliban took advantage of the situation. At first, they brought stability but their abuses to human rights soon had almost all nations backing away from accepting them.
Despite the chaos, there was no push to divide the country. The author points to several reasons including that the people never connected ethnicity with nationalism so there was no break like in Yugoslavia. Further, the connection between rural areas allowed them for some independence and cooperation with the central government. Maintaining the government also allowed some continued support from the international community while also enough unity that boarder nations would not try to take over their country.
After 911, America quickly took control of the country, but the Taliban had support from so much illegal opium trade. The Karzai administration had rampart corruption, stealing away the citizen’s potion of economic recovery. The first national election was well received but the leader used corruption to win a second term. But, once again, conservative, religious believes caused contention between the United States and the West versus the conservative rural countryside that had the majority of the population. Stability of the government relied on rural cooperation more than the leadership of Kabul.
Barfield is able to walk the line between complex discussion on the control of this nation while keeping it readable. He speaks to how the ruling dynasty whose family took control in 1747 was able to maintain power until 1978 when the Soviet Union started to engage in their decade long struggle. The author explained that because it conflicts and skirmishes only came from other family members. It was only the “hereditary elites who saw government as their business.” The geography and lack of roads also helped in this since the government was so limited in the rural areas; during the winter months, many Afghans are entirely separated from the rest of the country. When there was a push for more involvement in 1964, King Zahir Shah agreed to a parliamentary system but didn’t give it much power.
It's ironic that a nation that stayed neutral in both world wars would be locked in so many wars, including being a place for cold war skirmish between Russia and the United States then later Ground Zero in the War against Terrorism. It’s also remarkable that the unraveling of the Soviet Union and withdraw of this intervention with little interest of the United States to play a role allowed the Taliban to get their footing in the government.
It is also ironic that while Afghanistan fought against other countries influencing their government but also often took subsidies from others, be it the Soviet Union, Britain, or, more recently, the United States. Earlier, Britain provides a subsidy that allowed Afghanistan to build a powerful military. Germany, Japan and the United States provided incredible funding during the 1930’s. Germany was especially popular since they fought against two of the country’s top enemies – Brittan and Russia; neither shared a boarder so that allowed the citizens not to worry about next steps of these nations. Afghanistan was siding with the Nazi’s at the start of the war and felt the impact of Germany losing WWII. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, foreign loans and grants provided 2/3rds of their annual revenue, allowing the country to build roads. The Cold War was used by the country to pit the United States against the Soviets, securing more funding. The Soviets provide military aid while the United States gave humanitarian assistance. The author pointed out that while the Soviets build silos, the Americans then filled them with wheat. Both sides of the Cold War built roads and America provided education for the highly illiterate country.
Some assistance, such as reducing flooding and increased agricultural output by building a damn and the small road built around the country did allow some improvements for the citizens. But even with this incoming aid, since industry was state owned, it was hard to do business with the country. Furthermore, their right wing believes filled the university. Most funds never left Kabul, the focus of political activities.
The anthropologist side of the author made the book more interesting. He spoke about how historically wars were not against people of the state but about the leaders who controlled the area. While many people could get caught up in the war and lose their life, once the leader “acknowledged their submission” to the conqueror, a peace agreement could be reached. He points out that this is very different than the anti-colonial movements where it was about the rights of the people. Barfield also points out that when leaders face a common threat, they can set aside issues that usually divide them to come together to fight the outsider but once that risk is gone, they recapture their old grievances and take sides internally once again.
It was interesting when Barfield spoke about Ibn Khaldun’s “four-generation model” of dynasties. He spoke about the original leader who won the first conquest had “fresh opportunities,” using the qualities that allowed him to take control to govern. The second-generation has the socialization of his father but not necessary the raw skills. Khaldun points out that the third-generation leader often has a growth of corruption, siphoning off tax dollars for their own benefit. That makes it impossible for the fourth generation to win since the treasury is being detoured and resources are not there to support the nation. He raises the point that “success could never be made permanent.” In Afghanistan, the Durranis family remained in power for 230 years.
The country is extremely complex. The land locked country’s boarders are entirely by chance, splitting up communities. The country was always pressed with the Soviet Union on one side, Pakistan on the other, and Brittan always expressing their personal interest. The people from this poor, under-developed country was often pressed by all sides and ended up as a division between east and west, a fight between Western and Soviet views with a mixture of Muslim culture more pressing for most people in the county, people in the large rural areas.
The population are just an estimate since rural living and war has stopped an accurate count. It was never colonized so the country never had the true influence of another country or any growth of literacy or education. People are moving to larger cities, especially when so many left the country for the first time and experienced life outside their own village for the first time. Population has remained fairly stable due to the short life expediency of citizens with a “demographic profile typical of a premodern society which a high birthrate was matched by a high death rate,” as the author explained.
While there are many ethnic groups – Pashtuns (40%), Tajiks (30%), Hazaras(15%), Uzbeks (maybe 5%), Turkmen (another maybe 5%), Aimaqs, Nuristanis, Baluch, and some much smaller ones – the politics of Afghanistan are tired directly to Afghan cultural and religious values. Most of the population are still deeply rural, tied loosely to larger towns but their connection is their own family, village, and tribe. It’s more social than political. Almost all in Afghanistan are Muslims with Sunni’s making up the majority (roughly 85%) and a majority Shias and Ismailis. While the government is fought deeply in Kabul, the outcome has fairly small impact on the rural areas of town. The author pointed out that while the rural areas were more separated from the city and had different cultural identities, the villagers were dependent on relations with urban markets for many good. The federal government had to go through local leaders who had the reputation to be effective mediators and resolve differences, not because they represent national government but because they were local people.
In so many ways, Afghanistan has been a punching bag since the start of the 1900’s. While citizens fought against the threat from foreigners – Brittan, repeated Soviet Union threats, then the United States, they also suffered from their own governments. Non-Muslim foreigners are viewed as inferior to Afghans, even infidels, allowing people to join together despite their ethnic group to oppose foreign leadership. And, religion was the best way to unite the people of Afghanistan against others trying to impose their government on the people. Sadly, for 100 years, every leader was either slaughtered at home or forced to leave the country to save themselves.
There were repeated wars against Colonist attempts with the country winning the Third Anglo-Afghan War in April 1919 by bringing together the conservative religious groups against the British. These repeated victories increase the status of the country, especially in the Muslim world. Within a half dozen years, there was resistance within the country to taxation, draft to the military and changes to family life that went against their religion, especially liberal treatment of women. Issues that are in the news today – especially educating girls and wearing of veils – was relaxed because the clergy objected.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan at the end of December 1979 thinking they could withdraw their troops after a few months, like they did in Czechoslovakia. But the turf and thinking was different and the occupation lasted a decade, causing one million deaths of Afghans, the migration of four million refugees, and drew in the United States and Saudi Arabia to spend a billion dollars to arm the other side. Conversely, the Soviets were spending five billion a year – and losing. The Taliban gained strength and when the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States did not have interest and the Taliban took advantage of the situation. At first, they brought stability but their abuses to human rights soon had almost all nations backing away from accepting them.
Despite the chaos, there was no push to divide the country. The author points to several reasons including that the people never connected ethnicity with nationalism so there was no break like in Yugoslavia. Further, the connection between rural areas allowed them for some independence and cooperation with the central government. Maintaining the government also allowed some continued support from the international community while also enough unity that boarder nations would not try to take over their country.
After 911, America quickly took control of the country, but the Taliban had support from so much illegal opium trade. The Karzai administration had rampart corruption, stealing away the citizen’s potion of economic recovery. The first national election was well received but the leader used corruption to win a second term. But, once again, conservative, religious believes caused contention between the United States and the West versus the conservative rural countryside that had the majority of the population. Stability of the government relied on rural cooperation more than the leadership of Kabul.
Barfield is able to walk the line between complex discussion on the control of this nation while keeping it readable. He speaks to how the ruling dynasty whose family took control in 1747 was able to maintain power until 1978 when the Soviet Union started to engage in their decade long struggle. The author explained that because it conflicts and skirmishes only came from other family members. It was only the “hereditary elites who saw government as their business.” The geography and lack of roads also helped in this since the government was so limited in the rural areas; during the winter months, many Afghans are entirely separated from the rest of the country. When there was a push for more involvement in 1964, King Zahir Shah agreed to a parliamentary system but didn’t give it much power.
It's ironic that a nation that stayed neutral in both world wars would be locked in so many wars, including being a place for cold war skirmish between Russia and the United States then later Ground Zero in the War against Terrorism. It’s also remarkable that the unraveling of the Soviet Union and withdraw of this intervention with little interest of the United States to play a role allowed the Taliban to get their footing in the government.
It is also ironic that while Afghanistan fought against other countries influencing their government but also often took subsidies from others, be it the Soviet Union, Britain, or, more recently, the United States. Earlier, Britain provides a subsidy that allowed Afghanistan to build a powerful military. Germany, Japan and the United States provided incredible funding during the 1930’s. Germany was especially popular since they fought against two of the country’s top enemies – Brittan and Russia; neither shared a boarder so that allowed the citizens not to worry about next steps of these nations. Afghanistan was siding with the Nazi’s at the start of the war and felt the impact of Germany losing WWII. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, foreign loans and grants provided 2/3rds of their annual revenue, allowing the country to build roads. The Cold War was used by the country to pit the United States against the Soviets, securing more funding. The Soviets provide military aid while the United States gave humanitarian assistance. The author pointed out that while the Soviets build silos, the Americans then filled them with wheat. Both sides of the Cold War built roads and America provided education for the highly illiterate country.
Some assistance, such as reducing flooding and increased agricultural output by building a damn and the small road built around the country did allow some improvements for the citizens. But even with this incoming aid, since industry was state owned, it was hard to do business with the country. Furthermore, their right wing believes filled the university. Most funds never left Kabul, the focus of political activities.
The anthropologist side of the author made the book more interesting. He spoke about how historically wars were not against people of the state but about the leaders who controlled the area. While many people could get caught up in the war and lose their life, once the leader “acknowledged their submission” to the conqueror, a peace agreement could be reached. He points out that this is very different than the anti-colonial movements where it was about the rights of the people. Barfield also points out that when leaders face a common threat, they can set aside issues that usually divide them to come together to fight the outsider but once that risk is gone, they recapture their old grievances and take sides internally once again.
It was interesting when Barfield spoke about Ibn Khaldun’s “four-generation model” of dynasties. He spoke about the original leader who won the first conquest had “fresh opportunities,” using the qualities that allowed him to take control to govern. The second-generation has the socialization of his father but not necessary the raw skills. Khaldun points out that the third-generation leader often has a growth of corruption, siphoning off tax dollars for their own benefit. That makes it impossible for the fourth generation to win since the treasury is being detoured and resources are not there to support the nation. He raises the point that “success could never be made permanent.” In Afghanistan, the Durranis family remained in power for 230 years.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 10, 2023
Very informative if at times dense
December 25, 2025
Extensive cover of Afghanistan!! So much more to it than I knew. Very complex and heavy read however!
April 26, 2025
een droge review in de vorm van bulletpoints, want dit is zo'n boek waarin zowel het positieve als negatieve eruit springen:
+ je krijgt een goed overzicht van de Afghaanse geschiedenis en leert veel bij (tenzij je er al een redelijk sterke basis van kent, wat voor mij niet zo was)
+ de boeiendste delen zijn die die iets zeggen over de longue durée van hardnekkige culturele en politieke praktijken in Afghanistan. bijvoorbeeld de decentralisatie van het land; de spanningen tussen platteland en stad; de complexe clanstructuur waardoor er geen voedingsbodem bestaat voor eengemaakt etnisch nationalisme; het belang van regionale en persoonlijke banden als een crucialere factor dan ideologie; het feit dat Afghanistan, "a failed state but not a failed nation", nooit een serieuze separatistische dreiging heeft ondervonden; de kloof tussen bestuurlijke elites en een volk dat per definitie niets met bestuur te maken had; de corruptie in het rechtssysteem die ertoe bijdroeg dat het vertrouwen eerder rustte op lokale islamitische rechtbanken (en later op de Talibanrechters). Barfield stelt tegelijk dat Afghanistan er op één of twee generaties een reusachtige, jonge en moderne verstedelijkte bevolking heeft bijgekregen, wat de oude politieke patronen veel minder evident maakt dan eeuwenlang het geval was
+ het hoofdstuk over het socialistische tijdvak is een van de interessantste, geeft een goeie breakdown van wat er toen misging en waarom de balans van het PDPA-regime nog wel negatiever is dan die van de vroege Sovjet-Unie. dat omdat die laatste behoedzamer en georganiseerder omging met bestaand cultureel conservatisme in Centraal-Azië en tenminste een poging deed om lokale dynamieken te begrijpen. de PDPA deed daarentegen niets anders dan een voorgekauwd en compromisloos kader exporteren naar het Afghaanse platteland
+- het is een droog boek; meestal niet té droog en de informatie op zich capteert al genoeg, maar in sommige hoofdstukken kan het op het randje zijn
- het is heel karig qua bronvermelding voor zo'n ambitieus onderwerp en voor een academisch boek, met amper 10 pagina's aan eindnoten in totaal. van de bronnen over de oudere geschiedenis zijn er een aantal ook heel verouderd. natuurlijk zijn de kwantiteit van noten of het overdonderen van de lezer met bronnen ook niet alles (en we hebben het ook over een land waar archiefwerk onmogelijk is). een tegengewicht is de etnografische kant van Barfields eigen ervaring in Afghanistan, maar ik had gewild dat hij daar dan ook uitgebreider op inzette. ipv zijn antropologische troefkaart echt uit te spelen, poseert hij te vaak als een gladde historicus of liberale politieke wetenschapper die een groot discours optrekt over de Afghaanse conditie
- de herhaalde verwijzingen naar Ibn Khaldun - een middeleeuwse geleerde die niets met Afghanistan te maken heeft en die vooral een toevallige favoriet van Barfield lijkt te zijn - zouden in een kleinere dosis interessant zijn, maar de erudiete middeleeuwer komt bizar vaak terug. Barfield neemt in sommige hoofdstukken bijna de kaders van Ibn Khaldun over om dynastieke ontwikkelingen in de Afghaanse geschiedenis te beschrijven
+- je krijgt een goed beeld van de Amerikaanse invasie en de uitdagingen van de regeringen die daarop volgden, zij het vanuit een voorspelbaar westers perspectief dat uitgaat van de goeie intenties van de VS en hooguit hun incompetentie bekritiseert. ik geloof gerust dat veel Afghanen de invasie als iets positiefs zagen na jaren aan Talibanbewind, maar Barfield heeft het niet over het feit dat de VS in de jaren '90 nog gokte op de Taliban als bron van stabiliteit en hen contracten voor een oliepijplijn probeerde te laten tekenen. hij beschrijft Afghanistan ook als 'strategisch irrelevant' na de val van de Muur: toch een boude claim voor een land met zo'n geografische ligging. het feit dat de heropbouw van Afghanistan plaatsvond via Amerikaanse contractors wordt benoemd, maar eerder als een fait divers, niet als een strategisch motief. that being said blijft er veel te waarderen in het inzicht dat de Britten indertijd slimmer te werk gingen dan de Amerikanen in de zin dat ze het lokale politieke milieu echt probeerden te doorgronden en het subtieler bespeelden
+ je krijgt een goed overzicht van de Afghaanse geschiedenis en leert veel bij (tenzij je er al een redelijk sterke basis van kent, wat voor mij niet zo was)
+ de boeiendste delen zijn die die iets zeggen over de longue durée van hardnekkige culturele en politieke praktijken in Afghanistan. bijvoorbeeld de decentralisatie van het land; de spanningen tussen platteland en stad; de complexe clanstructuur waardoor er geen voedingsbodem bestaat voor eengemaakt etnisch nationalisme; het belang van regionale en persoonlijke banden als een crucialere factor dan ideologie; het feit dat Afghanistan, "a failed state but not a failed nation", nooit een serieuze separatistische dreiging heeft ondervonden; de kloof tussen bestuurlijke elites en een volk dat per definitie niets met bestuur te maken had; de corruptie in het rechtssysteem die ertoe bijdroeg dat het vertrouwen eerder rustte op lokale islamitische rechtbanken (en later op de Talibanrechters). Barfield stelt tegelijk dat Afghanistan er op één of twee generaties een reusachtige, jonge en moderne verstedelijkte bevolking heeft bijgekregen, wat de oude politieke patronen veel minder evident maakt dan eeuwenlang het geval was
+ het hoofdstuk over het socialistische tijdvak is een van de interessantste, geeft een goeie breakdown van wat er toen misging en waarom de balans van het PDPA-regime nog wel negatiever is dan die van de vroege Sovjet-Unie. dat omdat die laatste behoedzamer en georganiseerder omging met bestaand cultureel conservatisme in Centraal-Azië en tenminste een poging deed om lokale dynamieken te begrijpen. de PDPA deed daarentegen niets anders dan een voorgekauwd en compromisloos kader exporteren naar het Afghaanse platteland
+- het is een droog boek; meestal niet té droog en de informatie op zich capteert al genoeg, maar in sommige hoofdstukken kan het op het randje zijn
- het is heel karig qua bronvermelding voor zo'n ambitieus onderwerp en voor een academisch boek, met amper 10 pagina's aan eindnoten in totaal. van de bronnen over de oudere geschiedenis zijn er een aantal ook heel verouderd. natuurlijk zijn de kwantiteit van noten of het overdonderen van de lezer met bronnen ook niet alles (en we hebben het ook over een land waar archiefwerk onmogelijk is). een tegengewicht is de etnografische kant van Barfields eigen ervaring in Afghanistan, maar ik had gewild dat hij daar dan ook uitgebreider op inzette. ipv zijn antropologische troefkaart echt uit te spelen, poseert hij te vaak als een gladde historicus of liberale politieke wetenschapper die een groot discours optrekt over de Afghaanse conditie
- de herhaalde verwijzingen naar Ibn Khaldun - een middeleeuwse geleerde die niets met Afghanistan te maken heeft en die vooral een toevallige favoriet van Barfield lijkt te zijn - zouden in een kleinere dosis interessant zijn, maar de erudiete middeleeuwer komt bizar vaak terug. Barfield neemt in sommige hoofdstukken bijna de kaders van Ibn Khaldun over om dynastieke ontwikkelingen in de Afghaanse geschiedenis te beschrijven
+- je krijgt een goed beeld van de Amerikaanse invasie en de uitdagingen van de regeringen die daarop volgden, zij het vanuit een voorspelbaar westers perspectief dat uitgaat van de goeie intenties van de VS en hooguit hun incompetentie bekritiseert. ik geloof gerust dat veel Afghanen de invasie als iets positiefs zagen na jaren aan Talibanbewind, maar Barfield heeft het niet over het feit dat de VS in de jaren '90 nog gokte op de Taliban als bron van stabiliteit en hen contracten voor een oliepijplijn probeerde te laten tekenen. hij beschrijft Afghanistan ook als 'strategisch irrelevant' na de val van de Muur: toch een boude claim voor een land met zo'n geografische ligging. het feit dat de heropbouw van Afghanistan plaatsvond via Amerikaanse contractors wordt benoemd, maar eerder als een fait divers, niet als een strategisch motief. that being said blijft er veel te waarderen in het inzicht dat de Britten indertijd slimmer te werk gingen dan de Amerikanen in de zin dat ze het lokale politieke milieu echt probeerden te doorgronden en het subtieler bespeelden
August 8, 2018
I approached this book with a near to non-existent knowledge of Afghanistan and it’s history. I chose the book based on several recommendations due to Barfield’s renown in the field of Afghanistan’s anthropology and politics. His credibility also takes another big boost due to the fact he actually worked there for several years in the 70’s. The man knows what he’s talking about!
I’d recommend the book to anyone wanting an in-depth introduction to Afghanistan, even if you already have some background knowledge. It is absolutely fascinating and Barfield manages to make a subject that I was expecting to be quite dry a very accessible and enjoyable read. He describes the multitude of tribes, ethnic groups and their politics at great lengths before even delving into the countries history of nearly continual wars. Which really provides you with the context required to understand something so alien to Westerners.
After reading this book I can really see why American (like so many others) has failed so spectacularly in Afghanistan. Just like in Iraq after the war (during the creation of the CPA), they have put so little importance on understanding the culture, and the tribal politics of Afghanistan. Through this blindness to tribal politics they helped create the Taliban, as they did with ISIS. The U.S. government would have done well to make this book mandatory to any personnel on the ground there.
I’d recommend the book to anyone wanting an in-depth introduction to Afghanistan, even if you already have some background knowledge. It is absolutely fascinating and Barfield manages to make a subject that I was expecting to be quite dry a very accessible and enjoyable read. He describes the multitude of tribes, ethnic groups and their politics at great lengths before even delving into the countries history of nearly continual wars. Which really provides you with the context required to understand something so alien to Westerners.
After reading this book I can really see why American (like so many others) has failed so spectacularly in Afghanistan. Just like in Iraq after the war (during the creation of the CPA), they have put so little importance on understanding the culture, and the tribal politics of Afghanistan. Through this blindness to tribal politics they helped create the Taliban, as they did with ISIS. The U.S. government would have done well to make this book mandatory to any personnel on the ground there.
January 1, 2023
Afghanistan sits in a dangerous neighborhood and its people are justly
proud of their historical ability to maintain their autonomy. [...] Living in a
land whose crossroads status has been as much a curse as a blessing, Afghans have cultivated a pufferfish strategy to repel outsiders.
The Middle East has always been a gap in my education and I felt like finally fixing that a little bit by reading this very comprising book on the history of Afghanistan. Thomas Barfield covers a very long stretch of time and fills the book with very information-dense text chronicling the major happenings in the country throughout centuries.
It definitely helped me get a better perspective on the country, and presented more than enough interesting people and events for me to want to learn more about. Although it felt to me like the balance was a bit too much on the political history and didn't cover too much of the cultural aspect.
There is so much ground to be covered that I did wish at points that it would look a bit closer at certain events, but that would also make this already fairly thick book even heavier. As a first comprehensive overview of Afghanistan's long and complicated history, it's already very expansive with much to take away from.
Barfield seems genuinely personally invested in the history of the country but manages to tell the story from a rather objective perspective.
August 20, 2011
I pre-ordered this book before it was published specifically because Barfield is one of the most legit Afghan experts in the west. I read this after having done substantial research on Afghanistan, but nonetheless found this to be an engaging read that would also be accessible for someone who is just beginning to learn about Afghanistan.
The book begins with a thorough overview of the ethnic groups, settlement patterns, religion, and geography. It then discusses the social structures of the dominant Pashtun tribes and traces their rise as the power brokers of Afghanistan from the 1700s onward. He then narrates enough history, in sufficient detail, to help the reader understand current events in context. He offers plausible explanations for the failure in state building that has occurred since 2001, spreading blame around liberally but fairly. In my opinion, the only weakness in the book concerns military specific criticisms. For about 4 pages, he strays outside of his area of expertise and offers assertions regarding military operations, but offers no references to support those assertions. That is really the only criticism that I can muster - 4 pages out of nearly 400.
This is a very insightful book. It is a good first start in beginning further research on the country. But, even people well acquainted with Afghanistan will find this to be a very good read.
The book begins with a thorough overview of the ethnic groups, settlement patterns, religion, and geography. It then discusses the social structures of the dominant Pashtun tribes and traces their rise as the power brokers of Afghanistan from the 1700s onward. He then narrates enough history, in sufficient detail, to help the reader understand current events in context. He offers plausible explanations for the failure in state building that has occurred since 2001, spreading blame around liberally but fairly. In my opinion, the only weakness in the book concerns military specific criticisms. For about 4 pages, he strays outside of his area of expertise and offers assertions regarding military operations, but offers no references to support those assertions. That is really the only criticism that I can muster - 4 pages out of nearly 400.
This is a very insightful book. It is a good first start in beginning further research on the country. But, even people well acquainted with Afghanistan will find this to be a very good read.
Want to read
September 5, 2021A great lecture by the author: https://youtu.be/WF3Rkt42wPY
March 15, 2012
Well-written, compelling history and anthropology of Afghanistan. Barfield, who has spent decades in the region, demolishes many of the myths about Afghan history with a straight-forward account. He also discusses Afghanistan's place in the world, as a cross-roads of south Asian, central Asian, and Turkish-Persian cultures. Being accostomed to thinking of Afghanistan as a backwater, I found this different perspective very compelling. He also explained how successive Afghan governments have floundered when they tried to take too direct of a role in affairs in the country-side, but that Afghanistan could exist as a workable state without the government's writ necessarily prevailing in all parts of the country. Although the writer is an academic, the style is very readable for the average reader.
May 18, 2023
I was glad I had read a history of Afghanistan written by a native Afghan before I picked up this book. It's a good history, and goes much deeper into the history of Afghanistan's interactions with other nations than my previous readings, but the Western bias of the author was unmistakable throughout, and at times, it was distracting. If you want a good overview of why Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires, read this, but I strongly suggest reading Tamim Ansary's "Games Without Rules" first, in order to get a native Afghan explanation of the country's history and culture.
February 20, 2019
Excellent book covering the mysterious landlocked region known as Afghanistan. Little is known about this region, despite the West being at war with it for the past 19 years. This is controversial (not really - it might sting a little bit)...Afghanistan has defeated some of the greatest empires in history. They beat the British (twice), the Soviets, and the Americans. The Americans have lost this this war. They have.
September 22, 2022
At the beginning, I was thrilled to read about such a significant country. Alas! This book disappointed me beyond words. It's been more than a year and I'm still in page 190.
There is nothing in the world that makes me unhappy like quitting a book in the middle. I've been procrastinating on quitting this one. I think the time has come to accept the fact that this is not for me and that it's okay 🙂
There is nothing in the world that makes me unhappy like quitting a book in the middle. I've been procrastinating on quitting this one. I think the time has come to accept the fact that this is not for me and that it's okay 🙂
May 10, 2012
A fairly concise and interesting overview of Afghan history. If you're looking for an antidote to the argument that Afghanistan has always been some kind of war-riddled, postapocalyptic hellscape, then read this book.
October 7, 2017
An excellent book. Makes one proud to be a social scientist.
May 18, 2022
3.5 stars
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews