Since the fall of Afghanistan’s military and their Government falling back into the hands of the Taliban last week, there has been significant discussion and comparisons made to the fall of South Vietnam in 1972.

To understand why it is a debate will require a brief history of Vietnam and its partitioning. So here we go.

Prior to 1954, Vietnam was one country. It was a colony of France and like all European colonies of that era, the citizens of Vietnam were a subjugated population.

France was defeated in the early stages of World War II and Japan, the Asian equivalent to the Nazis in Europe, invaded Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, the eventual leader of Vietnam many years later, was the leader of the rebels who fought the Japanese invaders.

He was, of course, backed by the Americans who viewed Japan as their primary enemy in the war after the attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbour.

The war ended, France was liberated and Japan defeated. Ho Chi Minh looked to his allies — the United States of America (USA) — in his effort for independence. France was not having it. America and France were allies so America turned him down.

Russia, then named the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), was happy to help and Ho Chi Minh’s movement became a communist one. France was defeated in 1954, which seems to happen often. America saw this as a massive threat and the ultimate vitamin shot for communism in Asia. So it got involved.

The country was separated into two, with the communists in the north and the democratic party to the south. Thus the birth of South Vietnam in 1954.

Afghanistan needs no introduction or crash courses. We all know it was the country under Taliban leadership that allowed Osama Bin Laden a base to train terrorists.

I can understand why America pulled out of Afghanistan. Twenty years is a long, expensive time. But didn’t the Americans realise that the Taliban would rise again?

This is the same group that contributed to 9/11. How long will it take for planes to begin hitting buildings in Manhattan again?

Okay, let us say that they learnt their lesson after the last response America gave them. Is it therefore acceptable to allow the Taliban to rule Afghanistan again? If so, will it be okay for a Nazi Government to lead Germany once again?

When America pulled out of South Vietnam the foundation was laid to accommodate the people who fought beside them. Millions of refugees were resettled. Why was that not put in place here? Can you imagine the treatment of anyone remotely connected to American occupation?

Why is all this relevant to a criminologist?

Because there are lessons to be learnt here that are applicable to our environment.

Firstly, occupation is not a short-term tool because of the risk posed by relevant people in the occupied territory to an external group.

What is the needed time? Whatever it damn well takes!

Almost 3,000 people died in 9/11. If it takes 100 years and an occupation that results in colonisation, then so be it. A tragedy like that must never be allowed to happen again. Always remember, Jamaicans died on that day too.

This is why I say ‘ZOSA’, the Jamaican word for occupation, must have no set periods. Once implemented it must remain until cultural change exists. It is possible.

The American occupation of Japan tamed one of the most extreme cultures in the history of human conflict — the Banzai. This was the sum total of absolute obedience to the emperor and the use of brutality when possible, rather than when necessary.

How did they do this? It was led by General McArthur who targeted the very young for re-education and reform of conduct.

That needs to be the ZOSA approach. Move in and take steps to bring about future behavioural change by focusing on cultural change. Social services and economic infrastructure must also be addressed.

It is unrealistic to assume lasting change by short-term, military-styled occupation. That is simply one piece of a complicated solution.

What do we do next?

We take it slow. We focus on one zone at a time. We start with western Kingston and we move from one historic political garrison to another. Once ZOSA is in there, it is there for change and it is there to stay. Short-term flare-ups must be handled by short-term parochial states of emergency that I refer to as the ‘Chang Model ZOSA’. However, it should be the McArthur model. Hold, secure, re-educate, reform. Both methods are relevant – one is short-term, one is long-term. Both extremely useful.

Now, why west Kingston?

Well, western Kingston stands as a symbol of why we lost our country.

I am speaking of the entire western Kingston, to include Arnett Gardens, Rose Town, and Wilton Gardens (Rema). These were the battlegrounds for Jamaica’s urban warfare, where political leaders allowed and fostered their constituents to be in a position to oppose the nation’s police and military.

ZOSA is the solution to reversing the course on which a group of irresponsible, selfish, and manipulated young men set us almost 50 years ago. If we miss this opportunity, there will be no others to come.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com