N & S Waziristan Taliban Groups Join Forces

[S-2]

"Given the mess the NA had created with their corruption and 'warlordism', not unlike what we once more see in Afghanistan after the US put them in charge again, that was a reasonable priority."

A.M. would you please stop this. You wish to link, incessantly "corruption" and "warlord" with the N.A. It's not understandable given the exact same behavior in Afghani pashtus of past and present. Even now the bulk of the opium business is in the south and that ain't N.A. country. It's not a warlord or corruption thing. You use that as a convenient billy-club to swing. It's a tajik, uzbek, hazara, turkoman, pashtu thingy and that's the blunt fact.

Yeah, you had your priorities and that was stabilizing Afghanistan on your terms. Meanwhile, the dead between 1990 and 2001 that I've seen come to around 200,000. We're not close to that since 9/11. Not remotely.

"Your aversion to their ideology clouds your judgment when it comes to analyzing the stability and 'law and order' they brought about. I am no fan of their interpretation of Islam, but given the situation that existed pre-Taliban, the environment under Taliban rule was preferable by a long shot."

Yes, I'm utterly averse to their ideology and it's because my judgement is crystalline.

I guarantee that the taliban government didn't have one tajik, turkoman, hazara, or uzbek in it's leadership. No such thing as an inclusive political framework to their thinking-anywhere, anytime. That includes Pakistan. Equally, I'm certain that the taliban have no intention of ever holding a vote.

I guarantee that their notions of justice are not some "cultural variant" but the cruelest forms of medieval barbarism. They AREN'T Islamic, are they? Is that SHARIAH?

There shall be no informal declaimers of their deeds either. Dissent isn't tolerated, is it?

These basic generalizations can be expanded 100 fold to reveal the brute essance of these beasts.

No, 1996 simply identified the survival of the fittest and affirmed that the hell which had been Afghanistan's lot since 1978 would be formalized and made a permanent fixture in it's final manifestation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2,

I 'incessantly' point out the corruption of the NA and pre-Taliban Afghanistan - that pre-Taliban Afghanistan included Pashtun warlords as well, so I am making no claims about the propensity of one ethnicity to be more corrupt over another. That the taliban were able to bring order into that madhouse, even if by draconian methods, is fact. Again, this isn't an 'ethnic' issue, its a regime issue. The NA regime was corrupt, its associates in the country, Pashtun or otherwise were corrupt.

They brought order, not chaos, that is where I disagreed with TS's characterization of the Taliban and Pakistan having sown chaos in Afghanistan. We did not. The chaos already existed and we sought to replace it with some form of stability, and stability we did create in the areas controlled by the Taliban.

Your judgment is not crystalline - just because the NA allowed women to wear mini skirts you overlook the fact that they were running and tolerating mini-fiefdoms across the country where women where raped and people murdered and extorted at the whims of the 'chiefs' of these fiefdoms - in other words, corruption and barbarism is fine so long as a it wraps itself in a 'secular' facade.

 

[S-2]

"Your judgment is not crystalline - just because the NA allowed women to wear mini skirts you overlook the fact that they were running and tolerating mini-fiefdoms across the country where women where raped and people murdered and extorted at the whims of the 'chiefs' of these fiefdoms - in other words, corruption and barbarism is fine so long as a it wraps itself in a 'secular' facade."

I beg to differ. The issue raised was the fitness of the taliban to govern. You mitigated the issue by introducing the N.A. I've never held any of these organizations with any real regard. Some are beastly too. I loathe the taliban beyond belief but I'm not certain that Dostum isn't the worst of all.

I would leap with joy if McKiernan had legitimate warrants issued for the arrest of anybody in the current GoA government who's related to the trading in heroin, weapons, gems, humans or any other contraband. Even without a healthy insurgency, overcoming Afghanistan's own cultural impediments is a massive undertaking that's not guaranteed.

I would also welcome the pashtu plurality of Afghanistan to VOTE, something they'd never have the opportunity to do with any possibility of fairness in the absence of the U.N. Where voting can be extended, the execution will likely be reasonably fair. The question is reaching into the hinterlands to accomplish such. Doing so, though, provides the Pashtu a more certain path to power than the taliban can offer.

If Pakistan wishes to help, then (legitimately) get out the Pashtu vote and persuade your afghan taliban "proteges" to keep their mitts off the election. Or better yet, put down their weapons and come in from the cold and take their own electoral chances.

I'd love to read their party platform...

 

[ejaz007]

S-2,

What would the US do if they won the elections.

 

[S-2]

"What would the US do if they won the elections."

Make certain that it wasn't, "one man, one vote, one time...".

 

[ejaz007]

S-2,

If what you have stated is assured and even then they some how win the elections than what would be US reaction.

Let me make one thing clear the chances of this happening are very slim however just for the sake of conversation this scenario is being considered.

 

[S-2]

"what would be US reaction."

Key is "put down your weapons". I don't think, under those conditions, that our allies or ourselves would generally object. Certain men may need to be excluded from any reconciliation process- primarily those who've been identified as committing acts of terror against specific individuals. They should be tried.

If everybody is committed to an electoral process and is determined to see matters beyond a single election then a nation's polity can self-correct over time...a very long time in Afghanistan's case.

Thanks.

 

[roadrunner]

"Your judgment is not crystalline - just because the NA allowed women to wear mini skirts you overlook the fact that they were running and tolerating mini-fiefdoms across the country where women where raped and people murdered and extorted at the whims of the 'chiefs' of these fiefdoms - in other words, corruption and barbarism is fine so long as a it wraps itself in a 'secular' facade."

I beg to differ. The issue raised was the fitness of the taliban to govern. You mitigated the issue by introducing the N.A.

There's no reason to raise anything. The Northern Alliance were poor at governance. They could not provide security.

Rumour has it the Taliban came into existence and gained popularity through reputation. The Afghans know of it, something like local girls were being held by a warlord, and the Taliban went and freed them. The Taliban then fought off bandits that were ambushing convoys.

This was all due to the failure of the Northern Alliance to provide security to Afghanistan from 1990 onwards. Where the Northern Alliance failed between 1990 and 1994, the Taliban succeeded - that is in providing security to 90% of Afghanistan.

 

[roadrunner]

One needs to look at Afghanistan from the point of view of Afghans, and not from a cosy armchair sitting in front of an electric fire somewhere thousands of miles away.

When the NA were in power, there were barbaric warlords ruling land areas in Afghanistan. They were not held accountable and set their own laws. Compared to them the Taliban did provide some justice, even if it was a primitive form of justice.

About girls walking round in miniskirts under the Northern Alliance. This didn't happen. The Northern Alliance were just the same as the Taliban in religious zeal. One Tajik commander, Ismail Khan enforced a religious police in his area, and made the wearing of Burkhas compulsory amongst the women in the region he was in control of.

 

[Kasrkin]

Who'd you have in mind? Not America, I hope. We were their biggest humanitarian aid donor though we didn't recognize their government.

What, was a couple of hundred million dollars 'all you could do'? You gave the Mujahedeen four times as much to deal with the Soviets alone. But if it’s Pakistan that uses her meager resources to encourage the containment of NA Drug/War lords, then we’re the ones demonized for ‘pursuing our agendas at the cost of the Afghan people’. Well, like I said, we did what we could to bring peace to Afghanistan. We never had much in the way of economic strength or aid giving capacity, particularly not back then when we were under sanctions ourselves. But that can’t be said for some others.

The Taliban takeover brought peace to more than 80% of Afghanistan, and that’s also the way the Americans saw it even if formal recognition wasn’t forth coming. The Taliban themselves were the most popular group in Afghanistan at the time, otherwise such quick and widespread victory for these inexperienced fighters would have been impossible. We helped speed up the process that made it easier for international aid to come in, there was finally someone there who people in the international community could talk to and hold accountable. It was a start. Subjugation of the NA territories would have accelerated the process of international recognition greatly. The Clinton administration was hesitant about dealing with the NA because of their well known drug connections. Official Taliban delegations were visiting the US on the other hand, despite pressure from left-wing groups.

You see, we really don’t need to justify anything, particularly not to you our American friend.

How smug and self-satisfied. Don't include us in your coterie. We didn't recognize them for good reason

I’m not smug about it. Just objective, fair and realistic. You didn’t recognize the Taliban? Well good for you. But no need to be so damn proud about it. Many in America thought the Taliban were alright, pretty much the best bet for Afghanistan. Until Al-Qaeda raised the stakes ofcourse. I have literature regarding this if you want to see.

It's all about the strategic depth thingy. Was, is, and forever shall be.

LOL. Again what a well backed and constructed argument. Please tell us more of these very credible revelations. We care.

 

[roadrunner]

The reality is that Afghanistan's descent into internal chaos and external terror is more the fault of Pakistan than any other nation.

The reality is if the Soviets did not invade to prop up their Communist regime, if the Americans didn't try and prop up the anti Commies before the Soviet-Afghan war, Afghanistan would be a stable, perhaps even progressive state continuing on from 1979. Then there would not have been any Taliban.

Pakistan imo did the least of the 4 nations, US, Saudi, SU, Pakistan. It did not come into the equation until the early 80's well after the US and the Soviet Union had started their games in Afghanistan.

 

[S-2]

Chicken or egg?

"if the Americans didn't try and prop up the anti Commies before the Soviet-Afghan war, Afghanistan would be a stable, perhaps even progressive state continuing on from 1979. Then there would not have been any Taliban."

The insurgency was on by August 1978 in the rural regions as a rejection of the Kabul government's policies. You will be severely hard-pressed to prove that the U.S. gov't was executing any concerted policy to provoke an Afghan rebellion meant as a strategic distractor to the Soviet Union.

The last thing that U.S. policy was interested in seeing, pre or post-Shah, was the Soviet Union having any excuse or rationale to strike south.

As late as 1985, mujahideen commanders were bemoaning the paucity of meaningful aid from the west.

As to this-

"It did not come into the equation until the early 80's well after the US and the Soviet Union had started their games in Afghanistan."

Dissembling. Pakistan came into the war the day the first afghan refugee crossed your border. Don't kid yourself or live in self-delusion. The Zia government was virulently opposed to a Soviet presence in Afghanistan or even a communist proxy state, stable or otherwise.

 

[S-2]

"What, was a couple of hundred million dollars 'all you could do'?"

That it was humanitarian and distributed through NGOs or U.N. auspices means it reached a hell of a lot more people than your bullets and guns did. Your targeted and directed aid, virtually all military, was meant for one purpose only-securing your political status with an exclusively pashtu afghan gov't pliable to your desires.

"You gave the Mujahedeen four times as much to deal with the Soviets alone."

Strawman. We had common cause with others-many others. After they and you abandoned the afghan people, America (without recognizing the taliban gov't) was STILL Afghanistan's largest aid donor.

My nation wears no shame here. The rest of you do.

"...if it’s Pakistan that uses her meager resources to encourage the containment of NA Drug/War lords, then we’re the ones demonized for ‘pursuing our agendas at the cost of the Afghan people’."

Your ISI and the chinese had set up drug lads all across FATA during the war. Your taliban presided over the world's record opium harvest in 1999, three years after their conquest- a record not broken until 2006.

Oh, and where is all THAT dope being grown? HELMAND. Sounds terribly pashtu to me- then and now. Containment or destruction of N.A.? Sure. Don't plead your valiant anti-narcotics crap to me though. The taliban have ALWAYS looked to opium as a capital-generating mechanism and still do.

Pure power politics at the expense of any semblance of altruism. You tossed your considerable regional weight and prestige full-bore behind this regime for one reason only

"Well, like I said, we did what we could to bring peace to Afghanistan. We never had much in the way of economic strength or aid giving capacity, particularly not back then when we were under sanctions ourselves. But that can’t be said for some others."

What a load of self-pitied tripe!!! You did what you could and devoted your "economic strength" to the making of a nuclear weapon against the expressed wishes of those who could do something onerous in retaliation. You did so fully knowing those consequences. Your actions in Afghanistan and your decision to pursue nuclear weapons are both strictly decisions of nat'l security with no other end goal or loftier aspiration behind them.

You put yourself in that position and, because of it, devoted what aid you could in such clear and certain terms. In the meantime, you did NOTHING for the afghan people in general and had no interest beyond the promotion of your pashtu puppets to SMASH the other ethnic elements of Afghan society.

Boo-hoo indeed. Cry your crocodile tears elsewhere. We didn't recognize that nation and still gave more than any country on earth. You weren't close nor intended to be. I don't need your dissembling sh!t.

"...that’s also the way the Americans saw it even if formal recognition wasn’t forth coming."

An extremely odd way of giving the taliban our blessing, I'd surmise. We grant recognition to government's whom we favor. Certain governments whom we don't formally recognize also receive considerable favor-most prominently-Taiwan. We assume great political risk with the PRC for doing so. I don't see that calculus at all at play here.

Was it an example of our benign support when we sent PREDATOR strikes to al Qaeda camps during Clinton's regime or an expression of our concern about the conditions in Afghanistan that would permit such?

"The Taliban themselves were the most popular group in Afghanistan at the time, otherwise such quick and widespread victory for these inexperienced fighters would have been impossible."

They were never popular with the tajiks, uzbeks, hazaras, or turkomen, remember? That's why your meager aid was devoted to supporting taliban military operations against the N.A-or so you said earlier.

The source of your "...quick and widespread victory..." lay only among the pashtu. Nowhere else was it so quick and took considerable ongoing military effort to even reduce. The taliban became the LEAST UNPOPULAR miltant group-exceeding the ignoble politics of Hekmatyar and Haqqani..with Pakistan's help.

I see no particular appeal for the taliban among the Afghans, then or now. As for the appeal of the afghan taliban in Pakistan...it's through the roof. No greater friend has Mullah Omar than the Pakistani government and it's people. Of that there's little doubt.

"Official Taliban delegations were visiting the US on the other hand, despite pressure from left-wing groups."

No. They were parties of your officials. There's a difference. They didn't meet with representatives of the U.S. government here and the taliban U.N. representative never took his seat in the U.N. either.

"The Clinton administration was hesitant about dealing with the NA because of their well known drug connections."

Explain more closely what you're trying to write, please? I don't understand.

"I have literature regarding this if you want to see."

Not particularly. It's a large and free country. What's most important here is how the U.S. government saw matters in the Presidency and state department. They devise policy and take inputs from sources for whom vested interests rarely have access or interest. Our judgment was that the taliban government didn't deserve recognition under it's configuration and social/cultural objectives for Afghanistan. It was and remains the correct call, IMV.

"...what a well backed and constructed argument. Please tell us more of these very credible revelations. We care."

Need elaboration there? I doubt it. If so, though, google "Strategic depth in Afghanistan" and see what happens. Good primer for those like yourself that have heretofore been unacquainted with the concept. I'm really actually surprised but I guess I gave you too much credit there.

For that I apologize and promise to never do so again...

 

[roadrunner]

Chicken or egg?

"if the Americans didn't try and prop up the anti Commies before the Soviet-Afghan war, Afghanistan would be a stable, perhaps even progressive state continuing on from 1979. Then there would not have been any Taliban."

The insurgency was on by August 1978 in the rural regions as a rejection of the Kabul government's policies. You will be severely hard-pressed to prove that the U.S. gov't was executing any concerted policy to provoke an Afghan rebellion meant as a strategic distractor to the Soviet Union.

The last thing that U.S. policy was interested in seeing, pre or post-Shah, was the Soviet Union having any excuse or rationale to strike south.

As late as 1985, mujahideen commanders were bemoaning the paucity of meaningful aid from the west.

Whether it was the US that interfered first, or the Soviet Union that interfered first was not an issue in my reply.

The fact of the matter is the US and the Soviet Union were playing their little Great Game in Afghanistan well before Pakistan came onto the scene in Afghanistan.

Your point as to who started it, the Soviets or the US, that's debateble.

The Mujahideen were perhaps moaning about a lot of things so they could get more money. The fact is the Saudis and the US were supplying them, building their madrassas, feeding them etc. Pakistan, rather stupidly in my opinion, let themselves be used by the dictator Zia in allowing those madrassas to b built. No to madrassas, therefore no to the Saudis/US it should have been.

As to this-

"It did not come into the equation until the early 80's well after the US and the Soviet Union had started their games in Afghanistan."

Dissembling. Pakistan came into the war the day the first afghan refugee crossed your border. Don't kid yourself or live in self-delusion. The Zia government was virulently opposed to a Soviet presence in Afghanistan or even a communist proxy state, stable or otherwise.

I agree that Zia was opposed to the Soviets. He was your dictator in Pakistan. He managed to pass all his Hudood Laws by bypassing the legislature amazingly, and came up with some unworkable laws. Basically he was an unelected dictator that messed up Pakistan. However he was supported strongly by the US and Saudi. Economically all that money was pouring in at the time. It would have been good to have debated Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war before letting what occurred, occur.

That's not to say the Soviets would not have been a threat to Pakistan. However noone knows precisely (speculation aside), whether the Soviet objective had any eye on Pakistan.

 

[S-2]

"Your point as to who started it, the Soviets or the US, that's debateble."

Not to me it isn't but that's not the point, actually. You completely misunderstood. The afghans didn't need any outside encouragement to decide that they rejected the Khalqs after Daoud was whacked. This gig was ON in the countryside by late summer of 1978 without our encouragement or assistance.