open Democracy News Analysis - Afghanistan under siege, Paul Rogers - Comments

krbhatti on "Afghanistan under siege"

krbhatti — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:19:14 +0000

I totally agree with the author that ground realities in Afghanistan are not what they are supposed to be. The whole problem lies in the fact that the Taliban elements, which have a fundamental Islamic militaristic face apparently, have much more deep ethnic roots to it. They have their roots in Pashtoon tribal culture, which itself is based on the values and norms developed and perfected to the needs of a tribal society of medieval times. It is these set of values and culture that makes them attracted to the fundamentalist approach rather than other way round. Unless this parameter is not brought into the equation with the weightage that it deserves, I do not see Afghan problem solved in foreseeable future.

Being tribal in nature and fiercely independent, throughout history they have always stopped any outside interference in their way of life or culture, especially when it is done through force. Before anything else, what drives them is not Islam, but their ultra nationalistic approach that cannot tolerate any outside interference. Had it not been the case, the ranks of Taliban would have also included non Pashtoon, which is not the case. Brought up in a culture of blood feuds where death is acknowledged as normal, I seriously doubt that show of force can tame these people.

The only way forward with these people is to talk to them; and talk to them in language that they appreciate. Being brought up among Pashtoons myself, I know that they do appreciate and understand things when they are treated as equal, and respect is shown to their values and culture. The talk of finding moderate Talibans and talking to them is frankly speaking utter nonsense as there are no place of moderate or conservative in religious sense as I see it; because I see them as a nationalistic movement with Islamic face.

As far as current situation in Afghanistan is concerned, the biggest fiasco was committed by western world when they did not acknowledge the Taliban before 9/11 as legitimate government, when they were ruling Kabul. Had they been accepted a legitimate government at that time, world would had been in a much better position to change the course of events that ultimately lead to 9/11. Past cannot be changed, but we can still learn the lessons and move forward.

The best approach at this time would be to find people from the ranks of Taliban themselves, and talk to them; involve them in nation building process and just watch by keeping forces on the ground. Find powerful men irrespective of the fact that they are moderates or not, as once in the process of taking responsibilities, they will become moderates automatically.

tcp_1 on "Afghanistan under siege"

tcp_1 — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:00:02 +0000

herberg,

I am not sure I agree with you in this particular case. PR makes a couple of very direct suggestions: put moderate Talebans into government; do not respond to military deaths with massive fire power from the air.

You can disagree, but these sound pretty concrete to me.

ezzerol on "Afghanistan under siege"

ezzerol — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:42:39 +0000

I believe the funding for the taliban is coming from the sale of the opium poppy crop. The U.S. ia allowing this to happen so that the Afghan (tribal klan) regional leaders and members of Karzai's inner circle can profit from it. In exchange, these leaders are supposedly controlling any unrest toward the U.S. there.

So, in effect, not only are we we are allowing the flow of heroin into the United States, we are funding the very war that we are fighting against.

radamutz on "Afghanistan under siege"

radamutz — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:57:25 +0000

Major insurrection requires extensive weaponry; my question is where is the money and weaponry used by the Taliban coming from? Who is funding them? Until funds are cut off, thus drying up weaponry and munitions supplies, the Taliban will continue to plague Afghanistan.

herberg on "Afghanistan under siege"

herberg — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:19:17 +0000

This and another Paul Rogers article I read have the same characteristic: They describe exquisitely how things are going wrong and decry that policymakers do not see the light, BUT, Rogers sheds absolutely no light on what he thinks would be an effective policy to pursue. No proposed course of action whatso ever! The closest thing I would infer from his set of facts is that the West should finance and undertake a propaganda (Information) campaign that would dwarf the sources of information the Muslim world now depends on. The West could present a much more factually based depiction of how the radical islamists and Al Queda are going about the mission of enslaving them and doing so at a tremendous price of the lives of those they seek to enslave.

What concrete, specific, "realistic" course of action does Rogers suggest? I'd love to hear it; and I doubt that I'm alone on this.

Afghanistan under siege, Paul Rogers

Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0000

The west's military strategy in Afghanistan is proving counterproductive as well as costly. Read the rest of this post...