What's new

Are The Afghan Taliban Different From The Pakistani Taliban?

S-2

PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
4,210
Reaction score
0
I've been among those who've argued that the threat posed to Afghanistan and Pakistan by the "good" and "bad" taliban differ not at all.

I've argued that the functional behavior of both entities are more than similar. They are exactly parallel. My examples would include the governance of Afghanistan between 1996-2001 by the Afghan Taliban and what we've been able to witness within both FATAville (particularly S. Waziristan) as well as SWAT/Buner.

Here is an article that argues otherwise from the conservative Washington Times. It does so carefully, noting that this emerging view isn't universally accepted and the possible reasons why its acceptance is impossible-

Afghan, Pakistani Taliban Diverge On Goals-Washington Times Nov. 18, 2009

Two points of view-

"Afghan Taliban commander Abdul Manan (also known as the Mullah Toor) condemned the Pakistani Taliban for targeting innocent civilians as 'un-Islamic and wrong.'

He also denied that al Qaeda influences the Afghan Taliban, a stark change from the 1990s when the Afghan group hosted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda training camps and became the base for the Sept. 11 attacks."

Naturally, there is reason to question these sentiments. Yesterday's rocket attack on an afghan marketplace causing the deaths of 10 and wounding 28 more afghan civilians and the accumulated statistical evidence offered by both UNAMA and HRW show that the afghan taliban harbor no reluctance to target civilians and that terror remains a critical element of their psychological tactics and operational procedures.

That aside, though, afghan taliban spokesmen suggest that the end-goal of a taliban takeover in Afghanistan would be markedly different from that which is the aspiration of both the Pakistani taliban and Al Qaeda-

"Ashraf Ali, a specialist on the Afghan Taliban movement, told The Washington Times that some former Taliban leaders, such as Afghanistan's former foreign minister, have been allowed to live freely in the Afghan capital, Kabul, to represent the Taliban in negotiations with other Afghan factions and potentially the U.S.

Mr. Ali noted that Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former foreign minister, also has stated that the Afghan Taliban does not share al Qaedas global agenda of terrorism and that his Taliban was not a threat to the world peace."


'Afghan Taliban know well that it would be very difficult for the Americans to negotiate with them unless they clearly distance themselves from al Qaeda and its new allies, the Pakistani Taliban,' Mr. Ali said."

Another Pakistani analyst reinforces Asraf Ali's analysis-

"Rifatullah Orakzai, a Peshawar-based analyst, said the Afghan Taliban is trying to create good will by showing its differences with al Qaeda. For example, Mr. Muttawakil recently stated "that if the Taliban came into power, girls would be allowed to pursue education in segregated institutions," Mr. Orakzai said."

In contrast, Bruce Riedel offers this pointed assessment-

"The U.S. has to be careful not to be 'suckered in' by relatively moderate statements by former and current Afghan Taliban officials, said Bruce Riedel, a specialist on South Asia who headed a policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Obama administration last spring. 'A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people.'

Mr. Riedel said that such figures as Mr. Muttawakil 'speak for no one but themselves.'

Yet even Mr. Riedel recognizes growing tensions between the two camps.

'The Pakistani Taliban are attacking the ISI, which threatens the Afghan Taliban's cozy relationship with the ISI,' he said, referring to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

So has anything really been solved here? Most of these issues have already been pointed to by those of us here. I've personally stated numerous times that the afghan taliban leadership within Pakistan has been assiduous in maintaining good behavior on Pakistani lands for EXACTLY the same reasons as Mr. Riedel has observed. Self-preservation is at stake for that leadership and it can ill-afford a break in the harmonious relations it currently enjoys.

Further, there is the question of attaining near goals first. Neither the afghan nor the Pakistani taliban have yet achieved their objectives. Do we really know, based upon a few offered carrots by Mr. Muttawakil, to what extent the afghan taliban would adhere to a peaceful (if xenophobic and self-isolated) existence were they successful?

I don't. Rocket attacks on public market places suggest that there's no uniformity of views within the afghan taliban.

Secondly, do we know that the Pakistani taliban are adamant about spreading a pan-islamic ummah throughout S. Asia and then globally?

I'm reminded of the philosophical struggle between utopian communists like Trotsky and the european communists of France during the 1930s and those like Iosef Stalin who insisted that the preservation of the Soviet Union against all comers took precedent. It really was no more than suggesting one shouldn't over-reach one's objectives before proper consolidation of temporal gains were made permanent.

Would SWAT today be a taliban bastion had not raiding parties been sent forth nearly immediately into Buner? Clearly, most in Pakistan saw this as an affront of their recently stated intent and also as an attempt to crudely expand their influence. What if they'd very carefully played the game?

I offer these thoughts because the analysis in favor of viewing a kinder, gentler afghan taliban was forwarded by a Pakistani journalist and used the thoughts of two Pakistani analysts to support the contention.

The opposing view was led (at least in this article) by Bruce Riedel, an American. This schism may be coincidental. I know of Pakistanis here who largely adhere to my view. OTOH, it may not be. I haven't yet read supporting arguments by westerners to the views expressed by Mr. Ali and Mr. Orakzai but can easily imagine that such may be embraced by those in the west seeking an acceptable rationale for our departure.

I can also easily see Pakistanis here and elsewhere, to include analysts, who'll cling to the perspective that THIS afghan taliban ain't your daddy's afghan taliban. It fits nicely with holding your cards, all of them, and playing them one card at a time. That view also ties into my (and others') concerns about Pakistani support for the afghan taliban.

That rationale would be couched in a new benevolence within the afghan taliban hierarchy. I'm dubious because, naturally, I'm S-2...:lol:

...but more so because rocket attacks upon civilian targets contradicts the comforting words offered. Actions always speak louder than words.
 
Last edited:
.
I've been among those who've argued that the threat posed to Afghanistan and Pakistan by the "good" and "bad" taliban differ not at all.

I've argued that the functional behavior of both entities are more than similar. They are exactly parallel. My examples would include the governance of Afghanistan between 1996-2001 by the Afghan Taliban and what we've been able to witness within both FATAville (particularly S. Waziristan) as well as SWAT/Buner.

Here is an article that argues otherwise from the conservative Washington Times. It does so carefully, noting that this emerging view isn't universally accepted and the possible reasons why its acceptance is impossible-

Afghan, Pakistani Taliban Diverge On Goals-Washington Times Nov. 18, 2009

Two points of view-

"Afghan Taliban commander Abdul Manan (also known as the Mullah Toor) condemned the Pakistani Taliban for targeting innocent civilians as 'un-Islamic and wrong.'

He also denied that al Qaeda influences the Afghan Taliban, a stark change from the 1990s when the Afghan group hosted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda training camps and became the base for the Sept. 11 attacks."

Naturally, there is reason to question these sentiments. Yesterday's rocket attack on an afghan marketplace causing the deaths of 10 and wounding 28 more afghan civilians and the accumulated statistical evidence offered by both UNAMA and HRW show that the afghan taliban harbor no reluctance to target civilians and that terror remains a critical element of their psychological tactics and operational procedures.

That aside, though, afghan taliban spokesmen suggest that the end-goal of a taliban takeover in Afghanistan would be markedly different from that which is the aspiration of both the Pakistani taliban and Al Qaeda-

"Ashraf Ali, a specialist on the Afghan Taliban movement, told The Washington Times that some former Taliban leaders, such as Afghanistan's former foreign minister, have been allowed to live freely in the Afghan capital, Kabul, to represent the Taliban in negotiations with other Afghan factions and potentially the U.S.

Mr. Ali noted that Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former foreign minister, also has stated that the Afghan Taliban does not share al Qaedas global agenda of terrorism and that his Taliban was not a threat to the world peace."


'Afghan Taliban know well that it would be very difficult for the Americans to negotiate with them unless they clearly distance themselves from al Qaeda and its new allies, the Pakistani Taliban,' Mr. Ali said."

Another Pakistani analyst reinforces Asraf Ali's analysis-

"Rifatullah Orakzai, a Peshawar-based analyst, said the Afghan Taliban is trying to create good will by showing its differences with al Qaeda. For example, Mr. Muttawakil recently stated "that if the Taliban came into power, girls would be allowed to pursue education in segregated institutions," Mr. Orakzai said."

In contrast, Bruce Riedel offers this pointed assessment-

"The U.S. has to be careful not to be 'suckered in' by relatively moderate statements by former and current Afghan Taliban officials, said Bruce Riedel, a specialist on South Asia who headed a policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Obama administration last spring. 'A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people.'

Mr. Riedel said that such figures as Mr. Muttawakil 'speak for no one but themselves.'

Yet even Mr. Riedel recognizes growing tensions between the two camps.

'The Pakistani Taliban are attacking the ISI, which threatens the Afghan Taliban's cozy relationship with the ISI,' he said, referring to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

So has anything really been solved here. Most of these issues have already been pointed to by those of us here. I've personally stated numerous times that the afghan taliban leadership within Pakistan has been assiduous in maintaining good behavior on Pakistani lands for EXACTLY the same reasons as Mr. Riedel has observed. Self-preservation is at stake for that leadership and it can ill-afford a break in the harmonious relations it currently enjoys.

Further, there is the question of attaining near goals first. Neither the afghan nor the Pakistani taliban have yet achieved their objectives. Do we really know, based upon a few offered carrots by Mr. Muttawakil, to what extent the afghan taliban would adhere to a peaceful (if xenophobic and self-isolated) existence were they successful?

I don't. Rocket attacks on public market places suggest that there's no uniformity of views within the afghan taliban.

Secondly, do we know that the Pakistani taliban are adamant about spreading a pan-islamic ummah throughout S. Asia and then globally?

I'm reminded of the philosophical struggle between utopian communists like Trotsky and the european communists of France during the 1930s and those like Iosef Stalin who insisted that the preservation of the Soviet Union against all comers took precedent. It really was no more than suggesting one shouldn't over-reach one's objectives before proper consolidation of temporal gains were made permanent.

Would SWAT today be a taliban bastion had not raiding parties been sent forth nearly immediately into Buner? Clearly, most in Pakistan saw this as an affront of their recently stated intent and also as an attempt to crudely expand their influence. What if they'd very carefully played the game?

I offer these thoughts because the analysis in favor of viewing a kinder, gentler afghan taliban was forwarded by a Pakistani journalist and used the thoughts of two Pakistani analysts to support the contention.

The opposing view was led (at least in this article) by Bruce Riedel, an American. This schism may be coincidental. I know of Pakistanis here who largely adhere to my view. OTOH, it may not be. I haven't yet read supporting arguments by westerners to the views expressed by Mr. Ali and Mr. Orakzai but can easily imagine that such may be embraced by those in the west seeking an acceptable rationale for our departure.

I can also easily see Pakistanis here and elsewhere, to include analysts, who'll cling to the perspective that THIS afghan taliban ain't your daddy's afghan taliban. It fits nicely with holding your cards, all of them, and playing them one card at a time. That view also ties into my (and others') concerns about Pakistani support for the afghan taliban.

That rationale would be couched in a new benevolence within the afghan taliban hierarchy. I'm dubious because, naturally, I'm S-2...:lol:

...but more so because rocket attacks upon civilian targets contradicts the comforting words offered. Actions always speak louder than words.

I

TTP is anti Pakistan have billion of dollars ,latest equipment and trained cammandos provided by the enemies of Pakistan .

I am sure either Mossad or RAW or both are feeding them.:agree:
 
.
"Afghan Taliban commander Abdul Manan

Is it the same Manan as Mullah Abdul Manan Niazi? if it is the same then he was one of the biggest killers in afghanistan. he masacared thousands of shia civilians in afghanistan and called them kafir and asked them to become muslim.
 
.
TTP is anti Pakistan have billion of dollars ,latest equipment and trained cammandos provided by the enemies of Pakistan .

I am sure either Mossad or RAW or both are feeding them.:agree:

Bingo!

The Afghan Taliban are fighting against Indian puppet rule.

The TTP are financed and supported by India to foment trouble in Pakistan.
 
.
Bingo!

The Afghan Taliban are fighting against Indian puppet rule.

The TTP are financed and supported by India to foment trouble in Pakistan.

Lets assume for discussion sake that they are financed by India. Even if that comes true is the entire blame goes to India. Here are few questions I have.

1) Are the TTP not Pakistani citizen and Muslims.
2) Is it not true that GOP has done nothing to dismantle the gun factories in Pakistan producing AK7. Is it because these factories can supply AK47 to LeT and the likes. Is it not possible that these factories might be source of Weapons for TTP.
3) Why did GOP never tried to control the growing clout of TTP until US forced them to do so. Was it not there responsibility.
4) Who allowed the fundamentalist to have a free hand to spread distorted Islam for decades.

This are just few of my questions, my point is TTP was not created by India for sure, at best may have financed them or provided some weapons. Why no one talks about fault with PA and GOP because 90% of this problem was due to their policy.

If you guys are telling me that everything is external and your government is all clean and so are the citizens, then you won. I have nothing further to say. One cannot wake up someone who is pretending to sleep.
 
.
Lets assume for discussion sake that they are financed by India. Even if that comes true is the entire blame goes to India. Here are few questions I have.

1) Are the TTP not Pakistani citizen and Muslims.
2) Is it not true that GOP has done nothing to dismantle the gun factories in Pakistan producing AK7. Is it because these factories can supply AK47 to LeT and the likes. Is it not possible that these factories might be source of Weapons for TTP.
3) Why did GOP never tried to control the growing clout of TTP until US forced them to do so. Was it not there responsibility.
4) Who allowed the fundamentalist to have a free hand to spread distorted Islam for decades.

This are just few of my questions, my point is TTP was not created by India for sure, at best may have financed them or provided some weapons. Why no one talks about fault with PA and GOP because 90% of this problem was due to their policy.

If you guys are telling me that everything is external and your government is all clean and so are the citizens, then you won. I have nothing further to say. One cannot wake up someone who is pretending to sleep.

AFAIK, there was no TTP before the US invasion of 2001.

You are absolutely right that the GOP nurtured the jihadist mentality, which has now given cover for anti-Pakistan elements to use that same weapon against us. I am not absolving the GOP of responsibility. All governments do shady business, including the GOP (Taliban, Kashmir), India (TTP, NA, Balochistan, East Pakistan), or the US (Contras, Taliban, etc.). The difference is that most governments nurture the troublemakers in their countries while keeping their own country clean. They keep the dog in the kennel and don't let it inside the house. The GOP broke that cardinal rule and now the dog is running loose in the house.

Merely pointing out that the Afghan Taliban and TTP have completely different goals and support structure.
 
.
AFAIK, there was no TTP before the US invasion of 2001.

You are absolutely right that the GOP nurtured the jihadist mentality, which has now given cover for anti-Pakistan elements to use that same weapon against us. I am not absolving the GOP of responsibility. All governments do shady business, including the GOP (Taliban, Kashmir), India (TTP, NA, Balochistan, East Pakistan), or the US (Contras, Taliban, etc.). The difference is that most governments nurture the troublemakers in their countries while keeping their own country clean. They keep the dog in the kennel and don't let it inside the house. The GOP broke that cardinal rule and now the dog is running loose in the house.

Merely pointing out that the Afghan Taliban and TTP have completely different goals and support structure.

thx for your reply and glad to hear your views. My point is here on this forum everything is being blamed on India and no one is talking about other people involved. Why that question is not being asked, even if it is mentioned it is not as big a discussion as India's role.
 
.
thx for your reply and glad to hear your views. My point is here on this forum everything is being blamed on India and no one is talking about other people involved. Why that question is not being asked, even if it is mentioned it is not as big a discussion as India's role.

Hmm. I didn't get that impression. Most Pakistanis, on this forum and in real life, acknowledge that the GOP shares the blame. We also acknowledge the role played by the US in the past, and the ongoing support of radical Islamism by Arab benefactors.

The issue with India is the (expected) denial by India of any wrongdoing and the Indian/Western narrative that insurgency and terrorism between India/Pakistan are a one way affair.
 
.
The Afghan Taliban isn't just in this for taking back Afghanistan. Setting up the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan shall just be the base to expand further into Pakistan and other countries. Their ideology doesn't respect borders, just like the TTP and Qaeda. What is at the core of their ideology? It is the belief in pan-islamism, bringing back the caliphate. Does this ideology stand for a kind and peaceful relationship with neigbors? Can there be peace with non-muslim neigbors? No. It is a supremacist ideology based on expanding through military conquest. While the short term goals might be different, the long-term goals are very much the same. Live in denial at your own cost, especially if you are in Pakistan.
 
.
No, they're not.They both are evil irhabhis who must be destroyed completely.They should surrender and take part in political process instead of trying to grab afghanistan by force.The Taliban bastards did not even listen to Pakistani requests when they were in power and that is after we gave them huge support.**** those proud bastards.They must be killed..the myth that talibans cannot be beaten should break.
 
.
The Afghan Taliban isn't just in this for taking back Afghanistan. Setting up the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan shall just be the base to expand further into Pakistan and other countries. Their ideology doesn't respect borders, just like the TTP and Qaeda. What is at the core of their ideology? It is the belief in pan-islamism, bringing back the caliphate. Does this ideology stand for a kind and peaceful relationship with neigbors? Can there be peace with non-muslim neigbors? No. It is a supremacist ideology based on expanding through military conquest. While the short term goals might be different, the long-term goals are very much the same. Live in denial at your own cost, especially if you are in Pakistan.

The Afghan Taliban have repeatedly said that, unlike AQ, they have no agenda outside Afghanistan. But I do share your concern that they probably would try to export their ideology to neighboring countries and revitalize the TTP.

Pakistan is in a tough situation. We don't want an Indian puppet NA government in Afghanistan, nor do we want a Wahabi ideologist regime anywhere near us. Ideally, the Afghans would chose a non-aligned, non-puppet government focussed on Afghanistan's interests but, given their strategic location wrt China/India/Pakistan/Russia/Iran and the Middle East, that seems unlikely.
 
.
Pakistan army grabs power through the barrel of a gun and its okay but the taliban doing the same thing is horrendous.
Did the US get power in afghistan through elections?
 
.
Pakistan army grabs power through the barrel of a gun and its okay but the taliban doing the same thing is horrendous.
Did the US get power in afghistan through elections?

Now the Pakistan Army is equivalent to the Taliban? Their ideology is the same? Last time I checked, the Pakistan Army didn't take over any place and start flogging women, do kidnapping, close cd shops and cinemas, ban shaving, bomb schools, and not allow women outside the house.

Please don't post rubbish.
 
.
No, they're not.They both are evil irhabhis who must be destroyed completely.They should surrender and take part in political process instead of trying to grab afghanistan by force.The Taliban bastards did not even listen to Pakistani requests when they were in power and that is after we gave them huge support.**** those proud bastards.They must be killed..the myth that talibans cannot be beaten should break.

Is their any other force in Afghanistan could defeat Talaban?Tajik , Hazara and Ujbik are in minority .
 
.
No, they're not.They both are evil irhabhis who must be destroyed completely.They should surrender and take part in political process instead of trying to grab afghanistan by force.The Taliban bastards did not even listen to Pakistani requests when they were in power and that is after we gave them huge support.**** those proud bastards.They must be killed..the myth that talibans cannot be beaten should break.

They cant be killed overnight nor they cant be brought to Political negotiations without adhering their concerns which specifically focuses upon the withdrwal of forign troops from Afghanistan .
Indian factor is the one which compells Pakistan to support the "GOOD" tali bans and as long as that factor remains in afghanistan theres no chance of giving up those "Good Talibans".
Do you think the Irhabist Druglords of Northeren allagnce are all clean and would listen to Pakistan nope sir certinly not .They would forment more trouble to Pakistan at the hands of Rival Powers .....
 
.
Back
Top Bottom