1
Review of the dissertation thesis by Mr Pamir Halimzai
“Post-2001 Afghanistan: a Critical Analysis of the US WoT and State-building Discourse(s)”
Reviewer: Ing. Jan Martin Rolenc, PhD Faculty of International Relations,
Prague University of Economics and Business
The dissertation thesis by Mr Pamir Halimzai deals with a relevant but already extensively discussed topic of post-2001 Afghanistan in the context of the US War on Terror (WoT) and the interconnected state-building policies. However, it is novel and original in its theoretical perspective and methods used, its empirical perspective or research theme construction, and research questions asked.
The author explains:
“I have tried to look at the discourses of war, security and democracy building from an unorthodox perspective” (p. vii). “Instead of focusing on Afghanistan as a problem, [I problematize] the US WoT and state-building discourses in the country and [map] their increasingly illiberal and oppressive consequences for the Afghan state and the emerging realities of warfare and security practices of the future” (p. 9). “I do not adopt a problem- solving [i.e. mainstream, rationalist, and positivist] approach to see why the US discourses on WoT and state-building could not achieve their stated objectives. Unlike mainstream studies, I do not wish to propose that if the loopholes in the US discourses were fixed, they could translate into a desirable outcome vis-à-vis Afghanistan” (p. 11).
2
The thesis couples the Foucauldian-inspired theoretical prism of poststructuralism with the method of Critical Discourse Analysis. In this context, the author does not reduce discourse to language but sees it as a source/product of power, in action, having material existence and effects (p. 7). The author analyzes the interconnected discourses of the WoT and Afghan state-building produced by the US presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump using the poststructuralist concepts of the politics of confinement, necropolitics/necropower (based on the original Foucauldian concepts of biopolitics/biopower), and his own notion of abiopower.
Again, it is worth quoting the author in greater length:
“The dissertation revealed that Bush dehumanized and evilized the enemy i.e., al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This evilization and securitization of the WoT had broad depoliticization effects. The evilized depoliticization of the war laid the foundations of the politics of confinement in Afghanistan, practically isolating the country from the international community of states” (p. 234). “[Also, it] revealed the necropolitics of the US WoT and at the same time, demonstrated that the state-building process equipped Afghan political and ruling elite with the capacity and authority to exercise necropower that leads to the social and civic death of people dwelling in a society” (p. 235). “Obama expanded the politics of confinement to […] other countries […] through the drone war”
(p. 234). “The politics of confinement thus is closely linked to the discourse of necropolitics and necropower” (p. 235). “[Moreover,] the US discourses regarding Afghanistan and the global WoT transformed the ways of fighting wars. The US, by the extensive use of semi/fully-autonomous weapons (such as predator and surveillance drones), brought about a fundamental change in practicing security. This reliance on AI machines, robots and algorithms made possible the emergence of a non-living power technology that I call abiopower. Autonomous machines do not require human agency and brain but make decisions and operate on their own. Since this power technology does not originate directly from living humans and has no human emotional aspects, therefore is abiopower and will radically change the faces and forms of future warfare and security structures around the world” (p. 236).
3
I am aware that these are not mainstream and easy theoretical, methodological, and rhetorical choices, but they are adequate, well developed and explained, and skillfully applied by the author. The discourse analysis works with a vast number of texts and is characterized in sufficient detail.
The thesis builds on an extensive body of quality and relevant sources and literature, both primary and secondary, both for the purpose of the theory/methodology and the discourse analysis. The author rightly repeatedly calls his work “theory-driven”. He proves an excellent orientation in the current academic discussions and techniques in International Studies and the ability to apply the knowledge and skills. His analysis undoubtedly expands the empirical knowledge on the case in question. Moreover, he proposes and discusses a new concept of abiopower. The main contribution of the thesis is questioning the mainstream scholarly and political discourses on post-2001 Afghanistan, revealing the inconsistencies and contradictions in those debates, and asking new, thought-provoking questions.
The thesis structure is logical, and the main arguments and chapters are interlinked and flowing. In addition, the language and formal level of the thesis is excellent.
Having said all this, I find it hard to identify any serious weaknesses in the reviewed dissertation thesis. I could only feel a slight inconsistency between the chapters’ character. In the beginning, the reader gets what s/he expects: an introductory chapter focused on theory and methodology. The second chapter provides the context: an alternative history of Afghanistan (from 1973). For this purpose, the analyzed discourse comes from the mainstream, rationalist and Orientalist academic literature on the topic. The third chapter opens the empirical part and critically examines the discourse of the three US presidents, which comes mainly from primary texts (documents, strategies, speeches). But the fourth chapter is a mixture of all previous approaches, blending empirical paragraphs
4
with theoretical (and historical) diversions, proposing a new concept, analyzing various discourses (political, academic). On the other hand, one could see this as strategic: going from the general, theoretical and historical, through the particular (empirical), back to the general, or rather metaphysical where the traditional categories do not make any sense.
Finally, I appreciate that the author explicitly discusses the limitations of his work (pp. 17-18), which is in line with the critical and poststructuralist perspective. But his self-reflexivity also reveals what is usually hidden in scholarly work. I mean his personal memories in the Preface (pp. vi-vii), opinions on the future intra- Afghan dialogue, and visions of peace in the last paragraphs before the conclusion (pp. 209-210). For me, these are the strongest moments of the dissertation thesis, not only emotionally but also academically.
Conclusion: The dissertation thesis meets the requirements of the Faculty of International Relations. I recommend the thesis for public defence.
Prague, June 7, 2021
Ing. Jan Martin Rolenc, PhD
