US / UK foreign policy - yet another embarrassment

[David1819]

I was obviously thinking of the Mujahideens and their battle against the Soviet Union. A far cry,eh ?

That was what became the Taliban.

[lookout]

We as a country along with the US have let the Afghans down badly and should hang our heads in shame !

[guest29835]

The only good thing I will say about it is this. If any female Afghan was able to obtain an education, a career, a chance to emigrate to a better life, within that period, then at least something good happened to somebody.

I take the opposite view.  I wish the West would stop interfering in and imposing its values on other cultures.  It does nothing but damage, besides which, if the whiggish view is correct, these societies should be following a path of ever-upward progress towards the Liberal Democratic Ideal anyway.  If, on the other hand, Fukuyama's thesis was wrong and the Liberal Democratic Ideal is not inevitable, then let both the West and the East follow their own trajectories and create interesting and diverse societies.  Let a thousand flowers bloom.

In my view, Britain should withdraw from NATO and any bilateral military co-operation with the United States and other countries, and adopt neutrality as her default position.  No more interventions.  Close the borders to any further immigration, closing off one of the incentives for regime-changers: the ability to release pressure on these countries by sending troublesome people to Western countries.  No more of it.  I am not entirely illiberal myself, but liberal globalism is a failed model.

[Roch]

I take the opposite view.  I wish the West would stop interfering in and imposing its values on other cultures.  It does nothing but damage, besides which, if the whiggish view is correct, these societies should be following a path of ever-upward progress towards the Liberal Democratic Ideal anyway.  If, on the other hand, Fukuyama's thesis was wrong and the Liberal Democratic Ideal is not inevitable, then let both the West and the East follow their own trajectories and create interesting and diverse societies.  Let a thousand flowers bloom.

In my view, Britain should withdraw from NATO and any bilateral military co-operation with the United States and other countries, and adopt neutrality as her default position.  No more interventions.  Close the borders to any further immigration, closing off one of the incentives for regime-changers: the ability to release pressure on these countries by sending troublesome people to Western countries.  No more of it.  I am not entirely illiberal myself, but liberal globalism is a failed model.

Well all I meant was that if you were a girl who was lucky enough to do well outside of strictly imposed Sharia, as a result of the US/UK presence, and are able to pursue a career / enjoy a fulfilled life that would not have been possible under strict Sharia law, then at least somebody benefitted. They were around at the right time, within the window of opportunity. Surely you can't begrudge them that?

[guest29835]

Well all I meant was that if you were a girl who was lucky enough to do well outside of strictly imposed Sharia, as a result of the US/UK presence, as are able to pursue a career / enjoy a fulfilled life that would not have been possible under strict Sharia law, then at least somebody benefitted. They were around at the right time, within the window of opportunity. Surely you can't begrudge them that?

I do, because:

(i). It's not our business to interfere in other cultures in the first place.  Who is to say our way of doing things is better than Sharia?  That's an impossible question to answer.  We can only say that Sharia is for the people whose culture it is.  I would not want to live under it, but it is not my culture.  It's theirs.  Who am I to go round lecturing other countries and interfering?

(ii). These new opportunities you talk of are most likely illusory and she is being detached from her organic national/tribal culture.

(iii). Her opportunities come at the expense of British and American soldiers, many returning home in caskets, others returning home with missing limbs.

I believe a 'Prime Directive' should apply.  If it is advantageous to Western countries to re-colonise the Third World, then let's get on with it.  I have no moral qualms about that, and we can either wipe them out or govern over them for our benefit.  But I oppose the idea of intervention when it has the aim of shaping an alien culture towards what we think they should be.  We either respect their ways and leave them to it, or kill them all, or stay out of it.  Trying to Westernise everything is, in my view, a giant fallacy.

Your attitude reminds me very much of the Christian Missionaries of the 19th. century.  While volunteering for a chapel, I read a number of Missionary biographies and came away unimpressed.  Their Missionary work was fiercely resisted by many in the tribes they encountered because it was clearly an attempt to impose an alien set of values on proud, independent people and deeply patronising.  This of course was also reflected in British Far Eastern colonialism, which was different to both North American and African colonialism in that instead of trying to create British clone societies for British people to emigrate to and develop, we tried to turn alien peoples into Westerners, specifically pseudo-Britishers, who would live under British civil administration and be expected to act like us.

My observations here about non-intervention align with what many on the Left would say.  Even what I say about genocidal colonialism is similar to a Left position in that they advocate genocidal colonialism in reverse, by wishing to wipe out the white European race.  My attitude is that what's good for the goose is surely good for the gander.  But I also make the same observation in reverse.  Western organic national/ethnic cultures have been whitewashed in favour of a sanitised, consumerist, dumbed-down pop culture that serves profit.  That, in essence, is what liberal globalism is.  We have the right to defend ourselves.

[lookout]

I must add that a few of the Taliban punishments wouldn't go amiss in this country. Reading the Mail this morning it was reported that an Afghanistan had stolen a car so being apprehended was tarred and tied to a tree. then paraded through the streets. If only police here didn't have their hands tied as they do then such punishments would fit the crimes committed.
Only those who've had their cars stolen would understand !! Would our crime statistics reduce if appropriate punishment was meted out ?

[lookout]

By the way, is there anywhere else in this country who will be taking in Afghan refugees beside Liverpool or are affluent areas out of bounds ? 20,000 for re-settlement.

[guest29835]

I must add that a few of the Taliban punishments wouldn't go amiss in this country. Reading the Mail this morning it was reported that an Afghanistan had stolen a car so being apprehended was tarred and tied to a tree. then paraded through the streets. If only police here didn't have their hands tied as they do then such punishments would fit the crimes committed.
Only those who've had their cars stolen would understand !! Would our crime statistics reduce if appropriate punishment was meted out ?

I'm not sure about tarring and feathering.  I'd leave that to the Taliban, but certainly there has been a retreat from punishment, and also from meaningful rehabilitation.  The two should go together.

I'm reminded of what G.K. Chesterton said about the fallacy of rehabilitation: "...beat him around with a stick, but let him go".

[Roch]

I'm not sure about tarring and feathering.  I'd leave that to the Taliban, but certainly there has been a retreat from punishment, and also from meaningful rehabilitation.  The two should go together.

I'm reminded of what G.K. Chesterton said about the fallacy of rehabilitation: "...beat him around with a stick, but let him go".

What do you think of the theory that prisons should be set up to value prisoners, to make them feel valued and wanted as individuals and as members of society outside, so that when they come out, there's more of a chance that they feel like stakeholders in that very same society?

[lookout]

In most cases Roch, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
 

[guest29835]

What do you think of the theory that prisons should be set up to value prisoners, to make them feel valued and wanted as individuals and as members of society outside, so that when they come out, there's more of a chance that they feel like stakeholders in that very same society?

The problem is that this is too woolly and difficult to implement in concrete, practical terms, and also of limited relevance because most prisoners have no such pathology.  Those that do have these 'social' or mental problems probably should not be sent to closed prisons, and instead belong in psychiatric hospitals or open prisons or halfway houses, or something similar.

I can only speak from my own experience, in addition to the reading I have done on the subject.  Prisoners who are articulate and literate will often argue against prison.  Much of convict penology, for instance, is based on the premise that institutionalised confinement is counter-productive and wrong in itself, but this is written by people who are able to see beyond prison and the carrot-and-stick moral game. 

In most cases, prisoners are there because they are (or were) bad and only comprehend a carrot-and-stick system of controls.  You have to show them a hard face, or they will perceive weakness and take advantage of you.  If you tell them you want to make them feel valued, they won't break down and cry and thank you, they will just see you as a soft idiot.

The liberalised regime of the modern prison has failed because it has been formulated by well-meaning middle-class people who don't take account of this.  The regime doesn't trouble the prisoner unduly, but of course he wants to be out, so he behaves and complies.  He reoffends not because of prison, but because of 'rehabilitation', which is a system designed to 'treat' him and deter him and warn others about him, and has replaced the old system of simply punishing bad people who do bad things and then letting them go (G.K. Chesterton: "...beat him around with a stick, but let him go").  The result is a vicious cycle overseen by (mostly) well-meaning but deeply misguided people.

I have heard about this distinction some make that 'you are sent to prison as punishment, not as punishment'.  I disagree.  The regime itself should be punishing.  My view is that prisons are for punishment and should be austere, stern and the sort of places that terrify people.  Even the hardest of the hard should dread them. 

But the actual experience of a prison should be a place that is ordered, safe and humane. 

To that end, TV and radio should be banned from cells.  The regime should be strict and run by the staff, not by prisoners.  Daily activities should be contemplation, religious worship, education and work-relevant training.  As much as I dislike Gordon Ramsay, I enjoyed his TV series about running a kitchen and restaurant business from a prison.  That's a good idea.  More of that sort of thing is needed, maybe on a smaller scale.

There should be more prisons, not less - but they should be much smaller and more local to communities, with a system of local courts also restored (along the lines of the old assizes).  One idea that occurred to me is that prisoners could be given a choice of re-locating somewhere completely new towards the end of their sentence, if they wish, and should be assisted in this.  A more localised prison system may help.

All of this may have given you the wrong impression about me, so I will add that in my view the explicit aim of the Prison Service should be decarceration - in other words, prison officers and governors should work to make themselves redundant.  Their aim is to oversee the humane and ordered punishment, correction and reform of people who offend.  Prisons will never close completely, but the number of places could gradually be reduced and buildings re-purposed as the need for imprisonment decreases.  This of course also depends on wider policies in the areas of immigration, housing, industrial policy, criminal record disclosure and so on.

On criminal record disclosure, my view remains that once the sentence is served, the debt is paid and the record can in due time be deleted.  In most cases, unless the prisoner continues to be dangerous or show signs that he will reoffend, there should be a meaningful blank slate principle that takes effect after a due period - in some cases, this should be after a formal hearing before a judge or senior probation officer, or both. 

It's not perfect, but nothing ever will be.

[Roch]

The problem is that this is too woolly and difficult to implement in concrete, practical terms, and also of limited relevance because most prisoners have no such pathology.  Those that do have these 'social' or mental problems probably should not be sent to closed prisons, and instead belong in psychiatric hospitals or open prisons or halfway houses, or something similar.

I can only speak from my own experience, in addition to the reading I have done on the subject.  Prisoners who are articulate and literate will often argue against prison.  Much of convict penology, for instance, is based on the premise that institutionalised confinement is counter-productive and wrong in itself, but this is written by people who are able to see beyond prison and the carrot-and-stick moral game. 

In most cases, prisoners are there because they are (or were) bad and only comprehend a carrot-and-stick system of controls.  You have to show them a hard face, or they will perceive weakness and take advantage of you.  If you tell them you want to make them feel valued, they won't break down and cry and thank you, they will just see you as a soft idiot.

The liberalised regime of the modern prison has failed because it has been formulated by well-meaning middle-class people who don't take account of this.  The regime doesn't trouble the prisoner unduly, but of course he wants to be out, so he behaves and complies.  He reoffends not because of prison, but because of 'rehabilitation', which is a system designed to 'treat' him and deter him and warn others about him, and has replaced the old system of simply punishing bad people who do bad things and then letting them go (G.K. Chesterton: "...beat him around with a stick, but let him go").  The result is a vicious cycle overseen by (mostly) well-meaning but deeply misguided people.

I have heard about this distinction some make that 'you are sent to prison as punishment, not as punishment'.  I disagree.  The regime itself should be punishing.  My view is that prisons are for punishment and should be austere, stern and the sort of places that terrify people.  Even the hardest of the hard should dread them. 

But the actual experience of a prison should be a place that is ordered, safe and humane. 

To that end, TV and radio should be banned from cells.  The regime should be strict and run by the staff, not by prisoners.  Daily activities should be contemplation, religious worship, education and work-relevant training.  As much as I dislike Gordon Ramsay, I enjoyed his TV series about running a kitchen and restaurant business from a prison.  That's a good idea.  More of that sort of thing is needed, maybe on a smaller scale.

There should be more prisons, not less - but they should be much smaller and more local to communities, with a system of local courts also restored (along the lines of the old assizes).  An that occurred to me is that prisoners should be given a choice of re-locating somewhere completely new towards the end of their sentence, if they wish, and should be assisted in this.  A more localised prison system may help.

All of this may have given you the wrong impression about me, so I will add that in my view the explicit aim of the Prison Service should be decarceration - in other words, prison officers and governors should work to make themselves redundant.  Their aim is to oversee the humane and ordered punishment, correction and reform of people who offend.  Prisons will never close completely, but the number of places could gradually be reduced and buildings re-purposed as the need for imprisonment decreases.  This of course also depends on wider policies in the areas of immigration, housing, industrial policy, criminal record disclosure and so on.

On criminal record disclosure, my view remains that once the sentence is served, the debt is paid and the record can in due time be deleted.  In most cases, unless the prisoner continues to be dangerous or show signs that he will reoffend, there should be a meaningful blank slate principle that takes effect after a due period - in some cases, this should be after a formal hearing before a judge or senior probation officer, or both. 

It's not perfect, but nothing ever will be.

Thank you for your views. I asked the question as I think I read some claim about Scandinavian prisons taking the approach of trying to make the prisoner feel valued and well looked after, as this gives the prisoner a appreciation of the humaneness of the society which has imprisoned them but would also be willing to include them back in society.

[guest29835]

Thank you for your views. I asked the question as I think I read some claim about Scandinavian prisons taking the approach of trying to make the prisoner feel valued and well looked after, as this gives the prisoner a appreciation of the humaneness of the society which has imprisoned them but would also be willing to include them back in society.

What does 'make the prisoner feel valued and well looked after' mean exactly?  You realise that a prison is not a hotel.  It's a place of punishment.  Even a university doesn't necessarily make its students 'valued and well looked after'.  They are there to learn.  They either do or don't.

It's all a bit woolly.  You'd have to provide an example for me to see this in practical effect.  It's not that I fail to see the point.  I can see it theoretically.  One clever aspect to treating bad people well is that it disarms them and makes them less motivated to harm others, but this assumes that the offender is psychologically normal and will respond to normal influences.

I don't believe it would work well for the majority of prisoners.  They are where they are for a reason: in most cases, they're just bad people.  Prison restrains them and, it is hoped, makes them think again.  It's the stick in the simple carrot/stick moral game.  The problem isn't the concept of prison, as such, it is what happens after.  There is supposed to be a carrot, in that society accepts that once the prisoner has served his time, his debt is paid, but that is no longer the case.  Instead, we effectively have out-prisoners in the same way that hospitals have out-patients. 

Open prisons work well for a certain type of prisoner: either a lifer coming to the end of his sentence or a short-term prisoner who is very low risk and will take up opportunities offered, but they only work with a type of person who can behave and is amenable to it.  You've got to understand the animal you're dealing with.

[Steve_uk]

I'm troubled by the statistics but one in particular: that suicides are much higher in UK jails than on the continent. I don't begrudge leisure and recreation facilities if this helps to reduce tension. https://www.thejusticegap.com/uk-prison-population-third-highest-in-europe-and-suicide-rate-twice-the-average/

I read at the start of the Blair years that half the crime in the country was committed by a comparative small number of people, though I don't have the precise figures to hand. I did find this article though. https://www.scotsman.com/news/gangster-map-3000-hardcore-criminals-and-their-crooked-lawyers-2478068

This is another troubling statistic. https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/15/reading-for-freedom-life-changing-scheme-dreamt-up-by-prison-pen-pals-shannon-trust-action-for-equity-award

Should criminals be granted a clean slate once they've walked out of the prison gate?  https://youtu.be/rgQ3OvfpbHA

[David1819]

If we look at the timeline of Alqeda attacks on western targets.

1992 - Yemen Hotel Bombings
1993 - World Trade Center
1998 - U.S. embassy bombings
2000 - USS Cole bombing
2001 - Word Trade Center (again)
2002 - Ghriba bombing
2004 - Madrid attacks
2005 - London transport bombings
2008 - Danish-embassy bombing

It seems to have stopped. And the threat diminished.