Dear Anonymous,

How is it do you suppose that while I've clearly not sided with the silliness in semantics that dominate the intellectually bankrupt, you've however decided to appoint a side to me? The discussion forums are full of Pakistanis and Iranians (or Afghans influenced by them) that take sides on superficial arguments that barely resonates with the average Afghan on the street. Do you think the ordinary Afghan who will likely never see a University will give a damn about what we call it? One would think all Afghans would be better served if we spent time arguing about the collective security of Afghanistan, the natural rights of all Afghans and their future economic betterment. You obviously don't see it that way, given the evidence of your own sectarian mind. How is it that people like you are unfailingly more guilty of what you accuse others?

As for you informing me about the two major Afghan languages of "Farsi and Pashto", thanks for the lecture, but Afghanistan has anything up to 40 languages altogether, including Pashayee and Turkish. Yet inspite of this, both the Turko-Afghan leader Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznawee and the Pashtun-Afghan leader Ahmed Shah Abdali and all those that followed him, had overwhelmingly adopted Farsi as the language of their courts. This reflected the cultural dominance of Farsi speakers in the region and so much so that the Mughals of India too adopted it, hence the arrival of Urdu in the subcontinent. I guess someone needs to inform you that the Urdu shares a whole lot more with Farsi than Pashto. As to your implication that I'm to somehow be grateful for people not attacking my apparent "Urdu", precisely how is it that you've figured this language to be in any way naturally disposed to Pashtuns?

Most laughable of all is the fact that I don't speak a word of Pashto, given that my mother tongue is after all Farsi! For all I care, you may call all universities in Afghanistan as either Pohantoons, Danishgahs or both to suit, but I would have thought a far superior argument could have been made about the nature of the faculties and the standard of curriculums being taught to new generations! But don't let that bother you....

Barekzai

Your sentiments are duly shared here. In the quest for political correctness that seeks to avoid the appearance of cow-toeing the government line, the media are indeed dancing to the drums of the enemy. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 however, this wasn't the case. Back then, the media were completely on board in support of a government that clearly sought to take out those that indeed harmed US civilians. Back then, selling the war simple, as the enemy were the "Al-Qaeda-Taliban-woman abusers-anti-western Islamists-murderers-neanderthals". It was a simple case of liberating the Afghan people from them whilst delivering a befiting response to those that employed violence against the United States. It was easy to market the war in this format.

Now, when the true nature of the war is becoming clearer, along with it we see the nature of US intersts in the region becoming murkier. Suddenly, the sell has ceased to be easy. Why? Because the US government can not afford to publicly describe the war for what it is, hence not so much against a bunch of Taliban Peons and their immediate allies. But rather, a war against the actual states that support terrorism and/or support the states that support terrorism, and/or the states that use terrorism as one among many means to covertly challenge US interests in the world. If any US government were to indeed name these countries, then nations such as Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and more, would treat it as a formal declaration of war against all. Can the US afford to fight all of them in the one go? Of course not, hence the underlying reason for the war to continue being marketed down as one gainst the original bad guys who somehow manage to stay put. Though the war may have lost its lusture may be reflected in the media of allied nations, we Afghans however must recognise it for what it really is. Afghanistan is just one part of what is a global war, offering the US a strategic presence that works well with Afghan interests.

There is also one other point I would like to make. When US forces first flew over to Afghanistan, their intention was not to support the "northern Alliance", but rather to support a "United Front" that consisted of both anti-taliban factions on the ground PLUS traditional Afghan leaders who emerged from exile to garner the support they enjoyed on the ground, but lacked an organised army. When you refer to US support for just the "Northern Alliance", you are immediately falling into the trap of Pakistani propaganda, which oddly enough, keep positioning themselves as defenders of the "Pashtun interests", hence their deliberate attempt to ehtnicise the conflict to suit. I shouldn't have to remind you that any idiot with a minimal amount of uderstanding of Afghanistan's history ought to recognise here that the Pashtun leaders of the past were anything but friendly to Pakistan, who then raised an Islamist army from among them to spear-head a revolution that conveniently refuses to acknowledge borders among Muslims, hence the destruction of Afghan nationalism and our nation's sovereignty.

What Afghans need to focus on everything that untites us, rather than superficial arguments about whether a university ought to be named "Pohantoon" or "Danishgah". Just check the Afghan discussion forums and you might notice that these pathetic arguments are championed by those whose Afghan origins are clearly dubious.

Nawroz mubarak,
Barekzai