Customer Reviews

Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

...for understanding how we came to be in the predicament that we're in, Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story gives an unusually clear summary of historical events that led to the present (2009). Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald have obviously done their homework and gone to great lengths both in travels to Afghanistan and research to give us a picture of what's transpired, heretofore unobtainable in mainstream media. I GREATLY appreciate Elizabeth's and Paul's dedication in creating this book and found it most illuminating.
I encourage readers to not be deterred at the outset---the beginning of the book very rapidly traverses the early historical aspects of Afghanistan and the setting in relations with India, Iran, Russia, and Western Europe and is almost a whirlwind of names of leaders to keep up with. But it settles into more modest and comfortable pace as it enters the 20th century when the US entered the picture, inheriting the absurd mantle that Britain created in their 19th century era of imperialist behavior.
Though the work is not without bias---it's hard to create such a history free of SOME sort of bias---as long as the reader is alert to that fact of life, as with any book, he or she can interpret the events in his or her own world view, derive meaning and harvest a rich crop of concepts and political factors from the in-depth work and years of research of the authors in this subject.

Fortunately, I listened to these authors discuss their long up close and personal experiences in country and with the Afghani people from early 80s to present. They come to their perspective over a long period of time and with viewpoints rarely presented in MSM in US which seems instead to carry water for MIC (miltary industrical complex). As a result of CSPAN's hour long coverage of their book talk I intend to purchase this book and another that they highly recommended (Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos)for deeper background and understanding. A key element that they covered was the issue of the West turning its back on Afghanistan three different times and thus setting the US/Nato for failure. There is exploration of what went wrong and why. One cannot doubt their long view and reflections on political, cultural and social reasons for the way that country has again been betrayed by western powers for reasons which have nothing to do with 'democratization' or humane/gender concerns. THIS is the book for Americans to read before further damage is done and greater human suffering is left on ravaged Afghan's doorstep. Bravo to the Fitzgeralds dedication and diligence.

Very good, but not as comprehensive as I had hoped. Not enough material on the early years, particularly the nineteenth century.

There's more to Afghanistan's history than the rise and fall of the Taliban. "Afghanistan's Untold Story" is a look at the oft forgotten long and storied history of the Afghani people. Drawing the tale from thousands of years ago in ancient times to what Afghanistan was like before the infamous wars with the Soviet Union, it tells the story from the Afghani perspective, leading to a fascinating story of a war-torn people. "Afghanistan's Untold Story" is enthralling history reading, a great pick indeed.

Our Read & Practice Peacemaking group picked up this book in an effort to become more informed about Afghanistan. We were initially overwhelmed by the level of detail, but then settled into the uncomfortable epic of blundering imperialism that has been Afghanistan's story - and particularly America's interaction with this country. We sent letters to the President, Secretary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Gates recommending that they read and discuss Fitzgerald and Gould's work, because it isn't clear to us that Afghanistan's Invisible History is being taken into account in current U.S. foreign policy. The reply we received doesn't imply that the book was purchased and read at The White House, but perhaps if more of Fitzgerald and Gould's fans wrote the President....?

Fitzgerald and Gould add another book to the shelf of important work on the many Great Games, from Hopkirk's of that title and his Like Hidden Fire, to Coll's Ghost Wars, all of Rashid's work, and Hodson's Under A Sickle Moon. Throw in McCoy's old Politics of Heroin and, naturally, Kipling. For those who can retain good humor about the topic and want to ease into the history, see the Flashman novels. Of these, Fitzgerald and Gould's may be the best beginning point for a new investigator as they do a fine job on the long history of the AF-Pak region and bring the reader up to early 2009. That the authors are among the few who have actually paid attention to Afghanistan for 25+ years and have fought their way through the media fog is to their great credit as well. Radicals may be drawn to the book by Chomsky's endorsement. But this is not a radical book, and that's a problem. Radicalism goes to the root. Fitzgerald and Gould do note the Unocal vs Bridas battles, but only in passing. What the authors, bourgeoisie nationalists, come away with is not an examination of imperialism and its twin, capitalism, on a relentless search for profits via resources, cheap labor, raw materials, markets, and regional control, but an analysis of a conspiracy of bad ideas (often originating in failed "Trotskyities" who became reactionaries--whatever happened to Jay Lovestone?) on one hand, and dreamy solutions of "can't we all live together in a 'new kind of international cooperation'?" Well, no we cannot. The tangled web of imperialism, stretching out from the UK to India, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, really everywhere, can only be unraveled by going to its source, exploitation and inequality. For that, back to the Old Man: Marx.

Both books arrived timely and in good condition.
Thanks you Amazon.com & thanks to the shippers.
Good job ~ well done!

These authors peddle all sorts of leftwing conspiracy theories and other incredible stories about Afghanistan in the post World War 2 era. The Taliban's refusal to round up and turn over Bin Laden and Al Qaeda after 9/11 was merely an excuse for the US to invade and occupy Afghanistan - the real motivation for US interventioon was to secure rights for a Central Asian oil pipeline? I thought that old tale was an obsession of the crazier "intellectual" elements in France. Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski as the "Worst Person in the World" for wanting some sort of payback against the USSR for Vietnam? The Soviets' initially invading Afghanistan for more or less benign motivations? The Soviets' sending sincere back channel signals in the mid-1980s that they would happily withdraw completely from Afghanistan if only the US & Pakistan would force the Mujahideen to adhere to a sort of informal truce for 6 months? The vast majority of Afghans outside Kabul and the other urban centers eagerly welcoming rapid social modernization prior to the Soviet invasion? Little or no mention of the county's major tribal & ethnic divisions and of its history of almost no governmental control from Kabul, except when the tribes could be rallied to oppose infidel foreigners when the British periodically crossed the Khyber Pass? Retaliatory missile attacks via Predator drones against the Taliban in Pakistan entail immense numbers of "innocent" victims? [Telegram for the Taliban: using human shields, even your own family, is an internationally recognized war crime.] Are all Third World countries, including Afghanistan, totally helpless victims?

The authors (clearly left-of-center, doctrinaire, but selective, pacifists who are simultaneously "humanitarian" interventionists; as in the sort who would happily see the US spend the precious lives, limbs & sanity of its military personnel along with its scarce national treasure to invade Darfur, but then 9 months later decry use of excessive force and villify US troops for supposed war crimes against the Janjaweed) claim to have visited Afghanistan many times over the last 30 years. I wonder if they really interviewed anyone outside of a narrow Western educated, internationalist clique in Kabul.

All journalists build up views of countries and societies by generalizing some number of anecdotes, cliches and stereotypes, many of which may be greatly over-generalized, non-representative, or simply false, painting a warped picture: the conventional views of Vietnam in the early 1960s and of Iran in the late 1970s are good examples. The worst journalists and historians absorb only conversations and observations that confirm their preconceived notions based on their core doctrines and ideologies, that is, they are empirically-challenged. In the case of Afghanistan, it is the unconventional or dissident view of the subject presented in this book that is empirically challenged & way off the mark. The "reporting" of Fitzgerald & Gould is so clearly at variance with that of the overwhelming majority of journalists and academic historians with great experience in the region, but with no ideological or nationalistic axes to grind (as well as no apparent connection to oil pipeline developers) who, for example, describe the country as little more than a barren landscape inhabited by a patchwork of militant tribes mired inextricably in the 8th or 9th century CE, that this book can only be read as an exercise in observing warped Wilsonian leftist interpretation of non-facts.