Can't Write Them Out of the Script Entirely

by Eric Martin

This, from an e-mail correspondence with the Wall Street Journal's Anand Gopal re-printed with his permission, sums up why it is both repugnant yet necessary to attempt to negotiate with certain Taliban factions as part of the effort to establish a durable settlement to the many-sided conflict:

...Mullah Omar...[is] not that far removed from the society he came from. The Taliban did not just drop out of the sky one day--they are expressions of the rural, pre-modern, reactionary outlook prevalent in the Pashtun hinterlands. Women are essentially enslaved in these rural Pashtun areas, and this has little if nothing to do with the Taliban. Take a trip through the Pashtun countryside and you will meet many "women-hating, porn-fearing, music-despising people." I remember during my first week as a journalist in Afghanistan, I went to the aftermath of U.S. bombing raid and asked one man for the name of his wife (who had been injured). He pulled out a gun, slammed me to the floor and nearly killed me (because mentioning a man's wife in public is tantamount to adultery in those areas). Another time I remember a female Afghan friend I had (a university student) who made a call to a radio-call in show to request a song. When her family found out they cut all of her fingers off and force fed them to her (because singing and music is sinful). In fact, the word for musicians and public performers in Pashto -- dum -- is also a derogatory term!

The point isn't to excuse Mullah Omar or be a sort of moral relativist but rather to explain that the Taliban are products of the society they were born from and it isn't productive to call them "nuts". It will take years of modernization, urbanization and de-tribalization to change the cultural outlook in these areas, I believe. In the meantime, Mullah Omar and his ilk have shown themselves to be quite rational, with a sensible strategy to try and reclaim power. They've even gone a step further recently, expunging most references of Islam from their statements. They've gone out of their way to remove commanders who treat the population poorly and have instituted a mechanism to deal with complaints from locals. This isn't because they are a humanitarian organization all of a sudden but because they (like the Americans) realize that the population is the prize and they are trying to do everything they can to win them over. Therefore they are a very different movement from the one that ruled in the nineties.

Adding that they've also begun making a rhetorical break from al-Qaeda, attempting to quiet concerns in foreign capitals about the prospect of their return to power in some capacity or another.

In truth, many of the warlords and former Taliban factions cobbled together in the Karzai government harbor the same retrograde attitudes toward women and modernity.  Nevertheless, that is the society that we are dealing with, and part of the reason that some of the more grandiose notions of nation building need to be tempered.  That is also why talk of wiping out the Taliban is so misguided.

Gopal's observations are also germane in terms of dispelling the notion that one or another faction represents the Afghan people while the other doesn't.  In the regions described, these are the Afghan people in most instances.  This is a notion that I tried to convey in a post in early October:

In the debate over the future of US policy in Afghanistan, it is taken as a given by most proponents of prolonging the occupation that our presence is benefiting the Afghan people...In fact, through repetition and embellishment, the factions that we are supporting have become stand-ins for the entire Afghan population, at least in the abstract.  To leave, it is argued, would be to abandon "Afghanistan" the nation, or the "Afghan people," writ large. 

This formulation ignores the obvious rejoinder that for US forces to stay and battle the "Taliban" (whatever that term is supposed to mean on any given day) means to target large swaths of that same Afghan population.  Some of the anti-government groups are remnants of the Pashtun-dominated Mullah Omar-led Taliban that hosted al-Qaeda, some are entirely unrelated tribal entities, some are ordinary Afghans radicalized by the presence of a foreign occupying army, some are narco-warlords defending their turf and revenue stream, some smaller group are foreign fighters, etc. 

Regardless of the exact identity and motivations, and aside from the small group of foreign fighters, the people that we are killing also count as the Afghan people.  In actuality, we are protecting certain Afghan factions while doing our best to kill others.  It is an unstated, reflexive act of dehumanization to associate our favored factions with the "Afghan people" while relegating those groups that oppose the Afghan government to some form of limbo status in terms of their humanity/national identity.

Admittedly, it weakens the attractiveness of the narrative.

Comments

[chmood]

Sobering to realise that this merely extends the parallels between the Taliban and the dominionist/tea-bagger/so-called-conservative political movement that's been growing in the USA for the last 40 years.

Each is a product of relatively isolated, relatively ignorant, relatively irrational cultural elements and areas; each displays a comparatively violent, unilateral, emotionally reactive character compared with the home culture as a whole, and each wields disproportionate power as a result of the typical manifestations of the sub-cultures generating the movements.

I fear it will go very, very badly for the US as a nation and a people if we continue to obsess over the Taliban mote while ignoring the beam in our domestic eye.

But then, the is the land of the theoretically free & home of the "proud right-wing terrorist," in spite of our history with the Klan and the Know-Nothings, so perhaps it's inevitable that we follow in the footsteps of the Pashtun. Something about refusing to learn the lessons of history, I think....

[Jacob Davies]

I just cannot understand the basis for the utopian thinking that believes that you can culturally transform a society through occupation and development, that you scratch a peasant goat-herder or a soldier in a private army in a basically medieval society and underneath is someone ready for the give-and-take of democratic society. It took centuries for democratic societies to take root in Europe and America, driven by changes in education and religious belief, by industrialization, and through the growth of a secular civil society. I think you can accelerate that, but you're still talking about decades, as the examples in the post-colonial era would seem to indicate.

One of the reasons I'm optimistic about democracy in Iran (and to a lesser extent in Iraq) is that they do have a long tradition of civil society even if not exactly democracy. Afghanistan is not like that, outside of maybe Kabul.

But this is the problem with getting involved with foreign adventures. Only in cartoons is there a good side and a bad side. In the real world all sides in a country like Afghanistan are going to be unacceptable to American sensibilities. By intervening you force yourself to have to take sides.

We intervened to 1) capture OBL and defeat AQ in Afghanistan and 2) punish the Taliban for harboring him. We should've done that and gotten out, left them to pick up the pieces - which is what happens to countries whose ruling party harbors people who attack other countries. That's called "an incentive against harboring terrorists" and I don't think we would have been pilloried for it.

Sure, we should have given them what assistance we could, but not committed to a military occupation on behalf of one faction. Instead we chose to pretend that the Taliban did not reflect a significant political faction in Afghanistan, or that they were thoroughly discredited, neither of which was true. Afghanistan wasn't 1945 Germany and the Taliban weren't the Nazis.

I don't know when minding your own business fell out of style. Maybe it was never in style, I dunno. But what people do to each other in Afghanistan is not my business, at least, not to the extent that justifies a military occupation. (Civil support, sure.) People behave terribly to one other all over the world. As long as they're not killing each another en masse, or invading neighboring countries, that is their problem to solve.

(Doesn't help that we and the Soviets flooded the world with weapons during the Cold War, and backed any number of evil despots. But you don't fix that by extending the policy.)

[Uncle Kvetch]

I don't know when minding your own business fell out of style. Maybe it was never in style, I dunno.

Sometimes "follow the money" is just a glib catchphrase. But sometimes there's really no better explanation.

"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" --Madeline Albright

And bear in mind that Albright represents the sane, cautious, non-insane wing of the American polity.

[Uncle Kvetch]

"Sane" and "non-insane" -- oy. Too early on a post-party morning to be doing this.

[Sophia McDougall]

I know Western horror at these things isn't the point here, but I really, really wish I hadn't read that about what happened to the student. What happened to her after that? Does Gopal know?

[Jesurgislac]

Jacob Davies: I just cannot understand the basis for the utopian thinking that believes that you can culturally transform a society through occupation and development

Well, those are two different mindsets: the mindset that believes the "natives" can be culturally transformed through occupation, by violence and brutality: or the experience of NGOs over decades of development that giving people a chance to feed themselves and their families and provide their children with more opportunities than they themselves ever had, leads to a better society in the long run.

The first is pretty much excuse-making: when Bush & Co sickeningly justified bombing Afghanistan because Afghan women are treated as slaves, that was patently a lie. The US government had always regarded the plight of women in Afghanistan with complete indifference, and continues to do so.

The second is actually based on real experience and explains why NGOs tended to be the strongest and most consistent opponents of the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, because it was going to be fundamentally counterproductive. And has been.

[Bob Mackey]

@Jacob Davies--excellent post. I hate using the term, but the old argument between 'civilization' and 'uncivilized' rears its ugly head in this region once again. People tend to forget that the British coined those terms to address this region specifically. Iranians (Persians) have an ancient and established culture and civilization, one that has experienced and survived major changes and upheavals in the past (Persian Empire, Islam, imperialism, etc.). The cultures in the Af-Pak border regions, because of their isolation, have had little need to adapt to change over the centuries. The British and Russians did little to 'civilize' the region, instead taking the 'pacification' route--buy off some leaders, punish others--to maintain peace.

The idea that the US can bring Jeffersonian Democracy to the region is pretty silly. Most likely, Afghanistan will end up like it was before 1979--a central govt in Kabul that controls the city, a lot of scattered tribes doing their own thing elsewhere.

[joel hanes]

I think it's too little appreciated that the Tajiks, Hazara, Pashtuns, Balochis, Almaks, Turkmen, Uzbecks, Nuristani, etc. living within the borders of "Afghanistan" are separate ethnicities, with different languages and widely different cultures. Tribal identity trumps allegiance to "Afghanistan"; this area has never been unified into a nation-state.

Anyone claiming that they can produce a functional nation-state out of Afghanistan is selling something.

[Jesurgislac]

Anyone claiming the US occupation of Afghanistan is intended for the benefit of the people of Afghanistan is...

The occupied government of Afghanistan and the United Nations have both concluded that U.S.-led troops recently dragged eight sleeping children out of their beds, handcuffed some of them, and shot them all dead. David Swanson

[Sapient]

Jesurgislac, is the link to David Swanson's weblog the best you can do to support your apparent thesis that the US occupation of Afghanistan is, in fact, intended not for the benefit of the people of Afghanistan but instead as an operation to murder Afghan civilians in cold blood?

[Jesurgislac]

is the link to David Swanson's weblog the best you can do to support your apparent thesis that the US occupation of Afghanistan is, in fact, intended not for the benefit of the people of Afghanistan but instead as an operation to murder Afghan civilians in cold blood?

No, Sapient.

That was just the most recent specific brutal example of the US occupation killing Afghan civilians.

You want me to come up with more? I can. Limited to 3 links per post, of course. Have you been not-following the Afghan war to such a closed-eyed extent that you actually think there's something unusual about US-led forces killing Afghans in order to save them?

[Sapient]

Many civilians have been killed in air strikes, which is abominable and certainly a valid argument against the effectiveness of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Dragging sleeping children out of bed and murdering them is not something that happens as a matter of U.S. policy. If it happened (something that is very much in dispute) the perpetrators would surely face criminal charges. The fact that you cite David Swanson rather than a news report is telling.

[Jesurgislac]

Or try http://netdude.co.cc/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LnR5cGVwYWQuY29tL3NlcnZpY2VzLyI%3D&b=13 ">http://alturl.com/438v"> this . It has nothing to do with Swanson.

[Jesurgislac]

I've e-mailed the kitten about the troll who's back posting comments under other people's handles.

Dragging sleeping children out of bed and murdering them is not something that happens as a matter of U.S. policy.

And yet, the children killed are still dead. Trying to claim that US policy is against killing Afghan children would be marginally more convincing if the immediate official reaction to the murders being made public was to launch an investigation - not, as you yourself note happened, dispute that it ever happened because, er, all the locals who say it did must be lying.

War means the atrocious deaths of innocent people. When US policy launches a war of aggression against a nation that had not harmed the US and was no threat to the US, US policy is to kill innocent people, for no better reason than aggression, revenge, and just possibly an oil pipeline or so and a handy location for an extra-judicial prison camp to keep terrorist suspects.

If the intent is not to kill Afghan children and other civilians, then when Afghan children are killed, the proper response is to launch an investigation into who did it in order to decrease the likelihood of it happening again - not just to deny it all and let the crimes go unpunished.

[Sapient]

From what I've read, the incident is being investigated. From what I've seen (pictures) there's good reason to dispute that the allegations are true. I have very mixed feelings about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan for a number of reasons, but the project is not being billed by Obama as merely a good will mission for the Afghan people (except that an attempt is being made, while we're there, to do some rebuilding of infrastructure, etc.). It's my understanding that we're there in order to empower people in Afghanistan who oppose those who tolerate al Qaida. This is to benefit our interests, and Obama has been clear on that. It's true that it's a war, and that innocent people get killed in wars. There's a difference between that and cold blooded murder. Certainly it's fair to discuss whether the carnage is worth it, and from whose perspective it might be worth it.

[Jesurgislac]

From what I've seen (pictures) there's good reason to dispute that the allegations are true.

Of course there's good reason to dispute it, for a supporter of the war on Afghanistan: it is yet another nasty example of the "benefits" of the war.

I have no idea what "pictures" you could have seen that convince you that the people killed by US-led troops were in fact all dangerous al-Qaeda operatives. Or perhaps that they aren't dead at all?

It's my understanding that we're there in order to empower people in Afghanistan who oppose those who tolerate al Qaida.

Yes. And the pointlessness of this as a goal is that no matter how many Afghans the US "empowers" in its quest to kill, main, torture, and imprison Afghans who "tolerate" al-Qaeda, this will hardly decrease support for al-Qaeda: In fact, the historical record shows that such violent and unstoppable interference by a more powerful nation is precisely the kind of activity that increases terrorists, terrorism, and popular support for both.

This is to benefit our interests, and Obama has been clear on that.

So how does it benefit US interests to increase support for al-Qaeda and for terrorist actions by al-Qaeda against the US? Obama has never been clear about that. It was obvious why it benefited Bush to have an enemy like al-Qaeda to point at.