What's new

Afghanistan ... and Tokugawa Ieyasu


15 Apr 2002
Ok, here's an idea that's been brewing in mind for the last couple of days since I saw this report on TV.

The think tank boys were saying that Afghanistan is not much more different that it was like back in 1987. Good news or bad news .... well ... you choice.

They mentioned though that the political arena is still made of in figthing between various warlords through out the country. Which is why I guess they referred to 1987 date. Same type of situation.

They of course mentioned that the US basically armed the Afghanis and up-dated their warfare tactics.

They fighting method is not what really got me thinking, but the term "Warlord" did.

You would imagine that people would learn their history lessons better.

So all these great think tankers are complaining and hum-ing and ha-ing away with only ideas that won't actually work after the fact has been proven.

I'm on a tangent their. Back to business.

So warlord = daimyo ....

Tokugawa Ieyasu after defeating the remaining daimyo who stood in his way was faced with a country that's spread out, with loyal and obident servants, and a major problem of Tiger Fans and Giants Fans hating each other.

So, what does he do.

He gives out large parcels of land to friend and foe alike. Large enough to keep trouble makers busy and large enough to tax.

The next step was to keep the major power daimyo busy on business trips. So busy that wives would have to fill in place of the husband. So you got wife running the estate while husband was in parliment. Or having wife take notes and complain in parliment while the husband was at home tending to his land and his maids.

The non-loyal or suscepticable daimyo were always in a situatition that they couldn't complain, cause if they did. The Shogun (Tokugawa Ieyasu) had one part of the family always in close range. So, if the husband was huffy and puffy while at home. The Shogun could rape and kill his family at will.

In essence this situation neuters any angry dogs and creates a some what peaceful climate. Of course, this period was laced with intrigues and what not but still, the country remained as one and a majority of control was maintained at all times.

So, why don't those think tankers do the same thing to Afghanistan? Yes, this techinique is out of date and what not but it makes more sense than trying to create jobs and intice young fellas away from guns and power by offering them jobs flipping burgers or growing potatoes for Mickey D's.
Have to reflect more deeply on what you wrote, but here are just two ideas:

While Tokugawa Ieyasu unified Japan without foreign intervention, political powers in Afghanistan haven't been able to find a common denominator. The current president has been imposed onto the country by a Western coalition, the election thingy and the "Loya Jirga" (meeting of the tribe elders) were just a plain farce, so their legitimacy and acceptance among the people are more than doubtful. Ok, it also has to be admitted that the conflict basically started with the Soviet intervention in 1979, the Soviets just took advantage of a political vacuum.

Secondly, Japan was/is a homogenous society. Afghanistan consists of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and other ethnicities. They have different languages, traditions and religious beliefs. Under such circumstances it's very difficult to unify a country and create a political equilibrium (just think of Lebanon).
Under such circumstances it's very difficult to unify a country and create a political equilibrium (just think of Lebanon).
You're right, I'm Lebanese and I'm living diveristy in its ugly form .. Everything must be related to religion and sects , politics became a burdon to the country as equality is so hard to accomplish .. I hate it, this primitive way of thinking !!
Top Bottom