How the social sciences trumped technology in the Afghan battlefield

A questionable debate unfolded during the pandemic on whether or not the world needed more investment in science and technology than in social sciences. Governments emphasising the significance of STEM studies made headlines. 

Yet, the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in the absence of US troops shows that even when governments are equipped with the best technology—and for the purposes of this write-up, war machines, they can still suffer strategic defeats, rendering the money, effort and training invested in them for the last 20 years useless.

Scholarly analyses are being carried out to understand why the US withdrew and why it took less than a month for the fall of Kabul. I want to offer a different take on the perspective - that the days of winning wars using conventional weaponry are over. 

The situation unfolding in Afghanistan clearly shows that it does not matter as much what advanced weaponry, sophisticated equipment and technology one employs on the battlefield, it is understanding the people that matters most in today's age. One might reasonably argue that in the case of Afghanistan, it was the harsh terrain or the inability of the leaders to understand the country's history before stepping in, that made the country so hard to manage. 

While there is some truth to that idea, at the end of the day, it is not only the terrain or the history but also the inability of the leadership to understand the people, their needs and wants, habits, and lifestyle that led to the downfall of the Afghan government after the US's withdrawal. 

This gap in understanding of the people can be filled with the help of the social sciences. History remembers the kings, queens, generals and the great conquests, victories and defeats, yet on the ground, it is the people's hearts and minds that need to be swayed for them to accept and obey their rulers. 

This is how the Taliban won, mostly through the peaceful surrender of power to them by the Afghan army and the local people's acceptance of them. How did this happen? 

Let us recall the many instances of anti-colonial terrorism in history where terrorists/freedom fighters—take your pick—would inform the locals of an impending operation to be carried out in the area for the sake of minimising casualties. That is what the Taliban did.

At the end of the day, people want—as English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued—the assurance of life and the assurance that they will be left unharmed when they go to bed. The Taliban have learned and applied their soft power in a manner that others have failed. 

While the Afghan leadership and the Americans relied on their big guns, the Taliban relied on the safekeeping of, what they call 'their' people. Very few saw the signs of such changing attitudes among the rank and file of the Taliban. The Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of today are not the same. 

While the Taliban learned from their defeats, the West took them for granted. Additionally, the Taliban made strategic gains while the worlds' most powerful nations were struggling to protect their citizens from the Covid-19 outbreak and hoarding vaccines in the process. In South Asia, not only are the governments struggling to secure vaccines for their large populations but also bracing for the potential rise in violent extremism with the Taliban in power once again.

This is why we need the social sciences to understand when to and not to use weapons. To paraphrase William Shakespeare—weapons do not confer an identity. It is the identity that defines the way a weapon should be used - whether it is 'hard' or conventional weapons or 'soft' weapons such as 'knowledge' or rhetoric. That is why we shifted from trying to understand 'terrorism' to  'violent extremism'. 

We need a new lens to understand why men or women willingly embrace illegal means. They are not always brainwashed, often they use weapons as a way to express their opinions and exercise their agency. 

And yes, women are capable of choosing to be extremists as well, it is not in their 'nature' to be peaceful just because they are capable of giving birth. Like men, women are also social beings whose futures and that of their families are affected by societal transformations and political changes. 

Call them freedom fighters or terrorists, depending upon your point of view, it is increasingly getting easier for extremists to recruit women in their networks. With the 'feminisation of joblessness' in Bangladesh, where women are generally the first in line when job cuts take place, there needs to be a comprehensive view on understanding what might be the implications for the 're-Talibanisation' of Afghanistan for Bangladesh. 

A new strategic scenario is also in the offing with a possible convergence of interests among Iran, Pakistan and China towards an Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban. There is a precedence of such alliance of central Asian nations when the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) was established in 1964 by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey, so it is worthwhile looking out for a future alliance concerning Afghanistan in the future.

In conclusion, advanced technology and weaponry may work on the battlefield, but it is hardly effective at winning over the hearts and minds of the people who will be ruled over, making the grasp of power flimsy at best. The making and unmaking of counternarratives that influence the people are the tasks of social scientists. 

A merger of science, technology and social sciences is imperative now, to say the least. The events of the 21st Century remind us again and again of this idea, because the well of the past is too deep. Miss the opportunity and more trouble awaits.

The author teaches at the Department of International Relations at the University of Dhaka. She can be reached at lyasmin@du.ac.bd.