|
West a partisan in the Afghan civil war
Could also be titled "Professional intellect blows smoke, emits vapors"... The three speakers invited to talk about Afghanistan were Anatol Lieven, a former Times of London correspondent familiar with the region, anthropologist David B Edwards, who has worked and lived in the region for many years, and Brig Johnny Torrence-Spence, a former British military attaché in Islamabad. Lieven found it ironic that those who were the Wests friends in Afghanistan the 1980s, were its enemies today. He said the Taliban are rooted in a genuine popular insurgency and are based on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border since Afghan refugee camps continue to exist in Pakistan. Lieven may be "familiar with the region," but he doesn't appear to be aware of some really basic things. One of those things is that the Taliban aren't the mujaheddin who fought the Soviets. That would be the Northern Alliance - the Pandjir Valley men who followed Masood, whiskey-guzzling Dostum, Ismail Khan, dour Rasool Sayyaf, Rabbani, and the others who painfully put together an alliance of fighting men across the north and west while the Pashtoons plotted and planned and turned on each other and made their holy men rich. Hekmatyar was in bed with the KGB before he tried to steal all the marbles in the Dog Eat Dog. The Taliban were mostly kids at the time - the war against the Soviets started almost 30 years ago - and Mullah Omar was maybe a minor commander if not cannon fodder kinda sorta toward the end. He was never one of the big turbans. The Talibs took advantage of the anarchy that Hek unleashed to try and snatch the bone from the big dogs who'd earned it. They were backed by the ISI and the Pak religious parties, who tried to own and operate them. In power they were primitive and oppressive and they allied with the Arabs who attacked us. So trying to present things as us turning on our friends carries a distinct whiff of organic fertilizer. While their residents are getting integrated in the Pakistani society, they retain their ties to their country of origin. He found it ironic that Afghanistan keeps asking Pakistan to do more to prevent fighters going across the border, a border that Kabul has never recognised as the international dividing line. He stressed that the present Taliban insurgency has deep roots in Pashtun history. Maybe Pashtun history, but Dari-speaking Afghanistan has usually been relatively civilized. In fact, that was the case up until the commies tried their coup in the mid-70s. The Pashtuns have fought against invaders and against those they considered infidels or representatives of apostate governments. He said the Taliban are given shelter by fellow Pashtuns but that should not be taken to mean that it makes them Taliban or that they share the Taliban outlook or worldview. The Taliban worldview is rooted in Pakhtoonwallah. Ignorance is a virtue and they're not at all fond o' them Dari-speaking city slickers. He likened the situation to the support given to the IRA by Irishmen who were not necessarily its supporters. Lieven said the West should understand that military action alone would not bring victory. That's the way you can tell it's an Interservices Public Relations press release. There is no possibility of victory, only negotiations with turbans. The Paks will be more than happy to act as go-betweens. Military action has to be combined with development of the area and the uplift of the population. He said the West is trying to create an Afghan state that is inefficient, corrupt and an entity that is hated by the population since it does little for it. And there's an active Taliban movement to make sure that remains the case. Effect, meet cause. Cause, effect.
Don't you just love the subtlety that goes into these efforts? He also pointed out that while indirect rule of the tribal areas is not satisfactory, history shows that direct rule always failed. While Afghanistan is an important country in the war on terrorism, Pakistan is vital because of its size, composition and its nuclear capability. So we can just blow off Afghanistan, suck up to Pakistan, and let them have their Strategic Depth®. He expressed fear that if Western efforts in Afghanistan fail to achieve results, the tendency will be to blame Pakistan and to press it to stage crackdowns on radical elements, something that will lead to unrest in Pakistan and widen the conflict. The consequences for the war on terrorism could only be disastrous. Posted by: Fred 2007-03-28 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=184246 |