The Rule of Law

Kabul, 2011.

We had another briefing today on the rule of law.  It's quite big out here. The law of armed conflict, international law, criminal law.  In a country where the judicial system is riddled with apathy and corruption and the political system is twisted by patronage and nepotism that may seem more than a little ironic.  That said, I don't think any of us with more than a passing knowledge of Afghanistan will be that surprised by the inherent contradiction.    I think the point is, that by setting an example, the Afghans can be inspired, coerced and (probably) forced to accept some sort of minimum base line.  I will watch that development with great interest...As if that's not enough of a Sisyphean task, persuading the Taliban to acknowledge any set of laws will be a bigger challenge.  Despite a self-professed prohibition on the use of women and children as combatants, we have seen a marked increase in their use.  Yesterday we had an incident where an 8 year old girl was given a parcel and told to take it to the policemen.  As she complied, the taliban then remotely detonated the explosives contained within, killing the girl but no-one else.  

This comes in swift succession to other incidents using women and children as both unwitting and witting accomplices, last week, Afghan police revealed 4 boys, all under the age of 13 who had been recruited in Pakistan for suicide bombings.  Meanwhile, a woman was one of two suicide bombers (the other being her husband) who carried out an attack on Saturday.  Stopping a suicide bomber is hard enough.  Identifying women and children as potential bombers is practically impossible.  This is an example of another law.  The law of unintended consequences.   In much the same way as the insurgents switched from open combat to IED emplacement as they suffered losses and defeats, they have again switched tactics.  As ISAF make some, limited, but genuine progress in establishing security it becomes increasingly more difficult for the insurgents to attack coalition forces, hence they switch targets to civilians, as demonstrated by the attack on the Intercontinental Hotel this morning and Logar hospital at the weekend.  As it becomes harder for groups of fighting age males to actively engage ISAF troops in conventional, mujahadeen-style, attacks, they start to use proxies such as small children, as demonstrated yesterday.  So whilst we, quite rightly, attempt to prosecute this war according to a set of laws, not everyone out here is bound by such conventions.  

As well as the statute laws, what makes matters worse, is that we appear to are governed by a whole host of other laws.  I am not talking about those ethereal made up laws - like Boyles Law, Ohms Law or Keynes Law.  I am talking about the ones that affect us on a day to day basis.  Like Sod's law, Finagles Law and Sturgeons Law.  We all know Sods Law, the big brother to Murphys Law, which states whatever can go wrong, will go wrong - and I am not just talking about dropped toast landing buttered side down.  This being Afghanistan, we have Finagles Law, whatever can go wrong, will go wrong - at the worst possible time.   It's like running out of ammo, just as you get back to base, only to find out you are in the middle of a suicide attack.  Typical.  Here in Kabul there are three laws in particular I would like to draw your attention to.  Those of Messrs Sturgeon, Parkinson and Rothbard are particularly apposite.  Sturgeon's Law states 90% of everything is crap, Parkinson's Law states that work expands to fill the available time and Rothbard's that everyone specialises in their own area of weakness.  

If ever there were a set of laws that should be applied to Afghanistan, that's them