Ron Paul makes me like US conservatives again

Remove all ads!

Yes?

The Taleban are resurging. Not only did the US not win in Iraq or Afghanistan. Al Quaeda did 'win' Iraq, a place where they never before had a foothold, as a battleground state. Reportedly Al Quaeda types are also popping up in Palestine and Lebanon, two more places where they didn't have a foothold before.

There are two fundamental streams in Salafism. There are a myriad of islamic groups of both varieties of Salafism, Al Queda and the Taleban are only mentioned exemplary.

The Taleban for example originally were basically a 'preacher order'. Their idea was that jihad is foremost an inner struggle and that, before the fight for the Caliphate can begin, the Umma must be reformed and return to true (conservative) Islam. Thus their usefulness for their Pakistani masters as a stabilising factor in Afghanistan. Thus their moral policing. And thus they did not commit acts of terrorism. Clearly not non-radical, they were basically non-violent internationally. Only when the inner jihad has succeeded the fight to restore the caliphate can begin. There is a good chance now that the 'new Taleban' have drifted toward Al Quaeda's interpretation of jihad. War always stirs passions.

In contrast Bin Laden's and Al Quaeda's view is internationally oriented and holds that the Islamic world is to focus on the 'far enemy', the US, in order to provoke a violent reaction that would mobilise the Umma for the good fight for the Caliphate faster. And thus far it seems he is sort of succeeding, despite all losses they had to take. Expansion of the combat zone in this light is a considerable success. Recruiting is said to be on an all time high. In Bin Laden's view the violent US reaction is to be welcomed because it play into his hands and furthers his plans.

[ June 02, 2007, 08:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

They only committed them against the people living there, who are glad they are gone. And they apppear nothing more than a group of radical thugs. Their alliance with with Al-Qaeda makes them accomplices to international terrorism. One of the good reasons America should leave Iraq is to redeploy back to Afghanistan, where we can continue to hunt down as many of them as can be found, and perhaps catch up with their good buddy Bin Laden.

 

Chandos,

I was speaking of the difference in ideology between Al Quaeda and the Taleban, which is essential to understand how in Al Quaeda's view US actions like the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq constitute success for Al Quaeda, even if that's not immediately apparent or appears counterintuitive. That is what Michael Scheuer means (in his Op-Eds, books and interviews) when he refers to the US being Bin Laden's only indispensable ally. So far, US reactions after 9/11 have consistently played into Al Quaeda's hands and strengthened them, not weakened them. That is one of the points Ron Paul makes.

That said, we're getting here. On a curious note, the difference in ideology between Al Quaeda and the Taleban resembles the difference between Trotzkyites and Stalinists. That could offer, for a smart player, a chance for exploitation.

Of course the Taleban are not nice guys in the western sense. Still, their resurgence in Afghanistan is probabby a sign that there are Afghans who are not glad they're gone, who want them back, or for whom they simply offer a better deal than the West. If you think the West is in Afghanistan because the Afghans love us so much and want to become like us -- better forget that quickly. The Brits have had the greatest success in pacifying Afghanistan so far, by dealmaking, by allowing less hardcore Taleban back into the political sphere, and not much by hunting them down.

The Taleban are part of Afghanistan. It is a folly to think of them as an alien body, like a bacteria, that has fallen on Afghanistan. They guys didn't come from Pakistan. They didn't fall from Mars either. The Taleban are Afghans, offspring of the Afghan refugees in Afghanistan who returned home and brought their hardcore Islam right from their miserable refugee camps. They probably represent a sizeable portion of the population that one discounts only at his own peril.
I am quite sceptical about the chances of success for nation building in Afghanistan. The US might have been much better off had they shown restraint and limited themselves to a massive penal expedition to get Osama's head on a spike, and moved out quickly.

There are more shades than black and white.

[ June 02, 2007, 18:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I remember reading a piece in which several Afghani complained that under the Taleban the country was safer and better organized. It is a pity, and - if those sentiments are widespread - means that something has to be done fast, or the talebans might get a reputation as the people who could bring order and (some) security. That would be a serious feather in their cap in winning popular support - after all, we all know how willing people can be to sacrifice in the name of security.

 

Shaman - I believe they are not widespread. Life was harsh under the Taliban and don't be misled into believing that they are welcome back by large segments of the entire population. As much as citizens will come to despise any occupier who over-stays his welcome, the US policy should not center on rebuilding, but helping to restore the country to its citizens. The US was part of the Nothern Alliance, and as such, joined with other Afghans to eject the brutal Taliban regime from Kabul. If the Taliban win back the country it's not as if they will hold elections....

[ June 02, 2007, 18:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos,
the Taleban didn't attack the US on 9/11. Bin Laden did. They protected him afterwards, because of traditional loyalty and because they considered Bin Laden and Al Quaeda (rightly) to be pious Muslims, a thing Westerners have a hard time understanding.

If you look into their past the reason for that are quite straightforward. Bin Laden has made himself a name as a mediator in the Afghan civil war. He was a peace broker among Muslims, a highly respected man in the Afghan arena. Not to mention his status as a distinguished veteran of the struggle against the Soviets. He intermarried with the locals, making him kin which is to be protected at all cost. Honor dictates that. Afghanistan is a bewildering and archaic place.

To say the Taleban alliance with with Al-Qaeda makes them accomplices is so simplicistic as to border to false. The US is complicit with terrorism too, if the Posada case is any indication, so what? Justification for Cuba to start killing those crazed Florida Cubans who deem him a hero on a quest to bring Posada to justice? After all, they are guilty by association.

Don't let your passionate dislike for them cloud your judgement. You don't need to love or marry them. But peace you have to make with the enemy.

The alternative is Bush's eternal struggle against the evildoers to the 'Endsieg'. It is this hoax that is Bush's big lie. It isn't about Saddam's imaginary WMD. Andrew Bacevich is absolutely correct when he sais that the big lie is the Bush administration's claim to possess a secret formula for keeping America safe, the essential ingredient in that formula being a mandate to engage in open-ended war, where- and whenever the decider guy sees enemies.

 

But if they want to end the US puppet states, they lost because Afghanistan and Iraq are now ruled by US puppet governments...

It's a situation that can't be done half way. Commit or you're stuck in the war forever. And the voters won't support someone that wants to commit...

 

I'm glad you are here to inform me of that. Otherwise, I may have believed Team Bush that it was really Saddam.

But let's stop talking down to each other for a momemt and consider this comment:

In one instance you admit that the Taliban protected Bin Laden after the attacks on 9/11. Yet, on the other hand, it is "simplistic" to say that that makes them accomplices? Why would most decent nations refuse to recognize the Taliban regime? Probably that they had no regard for even the most basic human rights, or the rule of law.

I will make peace with them (the enemy) when I'm willing to give up the principle that liberty is worth fighting for; that basic human rights no longer have a place among civilized nations; that the rule of law has no value in a decent society; and that justice is measured upon superstitious dogma rather than reason and tolerance.

The Taliban were/are nothing more than petty tyrants; and moreover, they were the worst kind of tyrannical bullies because they attacked, oppressed and murdered those whom they believed could not defend themselves. Sorry, you won't find any sympathy for them in this quarter. Despite my dislike for Bush and his minions, I'm not willing to stoop that low, as to defend such scum as the Taliban.

[ June 03, 2007, 10:16: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

"I believe they are not widespread. Life was harsh under the Taliban and don't be misled into believing that they are welcome back by large segments of the entire population. As much as citizens will come to despise any occupier who over-stays his welcome, the US policy should not center on rebuilding, but helping to restore the country to its citizens. The US was part of the Nothern Alliance, and as such, joined with other Afghans to eject the brutal Taliban regime from Kabul. If the Taliban win back the country it's not as if they will hold elections..."

They are hopefully not widespread, but it is a serious issue and shows an even more serious problem: that people can forget a lot in the name of security (it's not like people elsewhere haven't been giving up a lot for being ostensibly more secure from something), and the weak Afghani government is not providing as much security as its people want. Unless I am very much mistaken, petty warlords are a major force in Afghanistan, particularly in the province, and they often act as autocrats in their own right. If their excesses are not checked an alarming number of people would be willing to acquiesce to any unifier - even one as oppressive as the Taleban. Who, IMO, probably had a nucleus of supporters even in 2001. Consider what was happening in Somalia before the Ethiopian invasion - a radical Islamic group had major support, not least because it promised unity and security. Now, there were probably a lot of differences between the union of Islamic courts (iirc) and the Taleban, but they used similar principles and truisms to gather support.

If the US - and other countries - want to make sure the Taleban stay marginal, they might want to consider Afghanistan a little more highly. Not necessarily in military terms, but in involvement with and support for the central government, particularly in motivating it to take the necessary decisions that would make it more than a city-state of Kabul.

 

He was on the Colbert Report this week. He wanted to reduce the underperforming Government agencies. That I like. Sure those things a re needed, but cut them down and build them properly if that's the case...