September 22, 2001

9:46 AM

Here's a New Republic article that provides some background on Afghani politics and an interesting argument on the Taliban's weakness. Here's a provocative quote: In 1999, when the United States devastated Belgrade and humiliated Milosevic, the Serbs eventually ousted him. In 1991, when the United States devastated Baghdad and humiliated Saddam, the Kurds and Shiites rose up, and might have toppled the regime had the United States not abandoned them. Historical parallels, of course, are never perfect. But the Taliban are no stronger than those two previous U.S. foes; in fact, they are probably weaker. Comments?
posted by estopped (19 comments total)

I apologize if this link has been posted elsewhere on MeFi, but it's pretty interesting. I've been wondering about Afghani politics and the various political parties.

Here's a BBC link with a brief analysis of the Northern Alliance and this is a Federation of American Scientists link with yet more info on the NA.

From an armchair perspective, it looks like the NA are primary candidates for a US Special Forces training/assistance program (if one hasn't already begun). 'Corse, that's assuming that some kind of anti-Taliban military action will take place, but that seems like a good bet at this point.
posted by estopped at 9:54 AM on September 22, 2001

From an armchair perspective, it looks like the NA are primary candidates for a US Special Forces training/assistance program (if one hasn't already begun).

Hmm...so we'll be fighting them in 2010? :::pencils it in on his calendar:::
posted by rushmc at 10:29 AM on September 22, 2001

Except, as Mohsen Makhmalbaf noted, what we know as "Afghanistan" is too loose a collection of distinct tribal affiliations ("In Afghanistan each Afghan is a Pashtoon, Hazareh, Uzbek or Tajik.") for an opposition movement to command the whole country effectively without it becoming another Taliban.
posted by holgate at 10:47 AM on September 22, 2001

Hmm...so we'll be fighting them in 2010? :::pencils it in on his calendar:::

That's exactly what I thought about when I found out Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. soldier in the Persian Gulf. Aren't the troops were sending overseas now just McVeighs in the waiting?

Seriously, this whole idea that we trained the Taliban so we are at fault for them coming after us is just nutty. McVeigh was trained by the U.S. also. We also trained Lee Harvey Oswald.
posted by RoyalJack at 10:53 AM on September 22, 2001

But the Taliban are no stronger than those two previous U.S. foes; in fact, they are probably weaker


Actually that makes me *more* nervous. Cornered animals are always extremely dangerous. When you have nothing to lose you will tend to thrash out- go to extremes.
posted by jeremias at 10:58 AM on September 22, 2001

and philby was just a cambridge model of citizenry. Can we get travolta to play Mcgoohan. (gotta love the steely, tinkity-ranky-tank ge-tar diddy....thingy.......ah-hem:)
posted by newnameintown at 10:59 AM on September 22, 2001

When I heard this story on From Our Own Correspondent this morning, it gave me pause for thought. There's a lot in it that is not new, but the idea that the Afghanis are torn between Bin Laden (who they have no love for as a foreign interloper), the Taleban (who don't command national respect by any means) and the U.S. (who have abandoned them to political chaos before and who they fear may do so again) came across to me as it hasn't before. I have no idea whether it would be a double post to put it on the front page, so here it is instead.

Still, I'm sure that many of you will take comfort from the news that "with just the threat of an American attack, Afghanistan is veering towards chaos [with] armed robberies, looting and massive population displacement".
posted by Grangousier at 11:17 AM on September 22, 2001

Seriously, this whole idea that we trained the Taliban so we are at fault for them coming after us is just nutty. McVeigh was trained by the U.S. also. We also trained Lee Harvey Oswald.

It's not the fact that we trained them but the context within which we did so. Essentially, we are producing mercenaries, not friends, and when their agendas change--or more commonly, OURS do--we should not be surprised to find ourselves suddenly on opposite sides.
posted by rushmc at 11:21 AM on September 22, 2001

The Northern Alliance does stand ready to fight the Taliban from the inside out. In fact, by all reports, they have been fighting with renewed energy since Sept. 11. However, they are a coalition opposition, made up of several different groups, and only days before the WTC attack, their leader was killed. It has been said that Ahmed Shah Massood was the glue that held the Northern Alliance together. It remains to be seen whether they will cohere and play a major role. Regardless, I don't like the idea of using one faction to wipe out another. This has been our foreign policy for too long, and too many of these "helper" factions turned out to be dangerous to us long after we built them up (can anyone say Saddam? Bin Laden himself?). This kind of "arming peter to kill paul" is not what I call making the world safe for democracy.
posted by scarabic at 11:28 AM on September 22, 2001

That's exactly what I thought about when I found out Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. soldier in the Persian Gulf. Aren't the troops were sending overseas now just McVeighs in the waiting?

Timonthy McVeighs are made by burning up 74 citizens for the crime of owning guns and holding out-of-the-mainstream religious views, not by training men and sending them into battle as part of a military action.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:09 PM on September 22, 2001

Timonthy McVeighs are made by burning up 74 citizens for the crime of owning guns and holding out-of-the-mainstream religious views, not by training men and sending them into battle as part of a military action.

Intentionally or not, that's perhaps the context for advising due caution if and when Afghanistan is attacked. After all, there are plenty in the region who fit that description perfectly. Damn you, Bill Hicks, for being dead...
posted by holgate at 1:53 PM on September 22, 2001

Excuse my scepticism but as we've all been here before, with the direst results(anyone remember Kabila as saviour?). Does anyone really believe that the Northern Alliance, apart from their potential usefulness in bringing down and/or replacing the Taliban, is the beacon of freedom and democracy it is currently being presented to be by our media?
Today's freedom fighters are tomorrow's tyrants. They all believe in guns, war and violence.
Pakistan's leader, also being touted as some sort of hero, came to power with a military coup.
So free elections are still the only standard, I'm afraid. But let's not be disheartened.
For real inspiration, look to East Timor.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:14 PM on September 22, 2001

Great link; this is the only first person account from Afghanistan I have seen.
posted by username at 2:18 PM on September 22, 2001

Since the subject of Serbia came up...Anyone ever wonder why so-called Moslem extremists never let loose any terror into Serbia? The Serbs probably did more harm to Moslems than anyone else, yet bin Laden, Hussein and the crew didn't seem to be bothered by that. Why not?
posted by girard31 at 4:09 PM on September 22, 2001

Does anyone really believe that the Northern Alliance, apart from their potential usefulness in bringing down and/or replacing the Taliban, is the beacon of freedom and democracy it is currently being presented to be by our media?

Hells no. At least not where I'm sitting.

So free elections are still the only standard, I'm afraid.

Yep. From the available evidence of those few links, it looks like the NA groups are less fanatical than the Taliban. That has to be a step in the right direction.

Slightly OT, but I was thinking today about living in a country ruled by college students. That sounds like absolutely no fun. I mean, with all the strident ideologues that I remember from my alma mater I'd shudder to think what those fools would do if they were running the show. Those folks were strident and intolerant, regardless of their particular political bent.

Egads, what about hardcore religion students. Not the kind of eclectic, lets-all-learn-latin/greek/sanskrit/arabic/hebrew/whatever-and-compare-texts kind of religion students, but real firebrands. Yikes.
posted by estopped at 6:53 PM on September 22, 2001

Anyone ever wonder why so-called Moslem extremists never let loose any terror into Serbia? The Serbs probably did more harm to Moslems than anyone else, yet bin Laden, Hussein and the crew didn't seem to be bothered by that. Why not?

Actually, quite a few Afghans fought on the side of the Bosnian Muslims. But that was a war of attrition, fought by artillery and snipers: I'd imagine that the mujahedin treated it as a home from home.
posted by holgate at 7:11 PM on September 22, 2001

Does anyone have any info on the NA attack on the night of 9/11? Does that have signifance?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:01 PM on September 22, 2001

Does anyone have any info on the NA attack on the night of 9/11? Does that have signifance?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:01 PM on September 22, 2001

Pakistan's leader, also being touted as some sort of hero, came to power with a military coup. So free elections are still the only standard, I'm afraid. But let's not be disheartened.

The Pakistani democratic government fell deep into corruption and Musharraf is seen by a lot of people to be a hero. I used to work with one of Musharraf's nieces at my old job and she couldn't stand the corruption of the previous government and says that a military presence in public has cut crime down (or perceived to) enough so that she feels safe walking at night.

There are tons of countries that are only democratic by name. Elections are nice, but they're even nicer when you're not told that if you don't vote for X you'll be jailed or killed.

I want to stress that there is no way to fix another culture's problems by just replacing a few thousand people in government. Second, who says we have the right? What if we left Afghanistan alone in 80's? It would most likely be a part of Russia now and we wouldn't have these problems now. Big assumption, I know, but its a valid point.

The assumption of how the US can fix this or fix that is scary. I don't know the solution, but I do know what doesn't work - arming the lesser of two evils and acting surprised when things don't work out.

Much to western's chagrin, the rest of the world is not ignorant of how representational government works. Some may not want it or have bigger problems to take care of to worry about becoming some revolutionary.

The Truman Doctrine isn't some magic fix it all. If your leaders are heartless bastards it doesn't matter what you call your republic, it still sucks to be under their "protection." I'd much rather live in a benevolent monarchy than a malicious democratic republic.
posted by skallas at 10:49 PM on September 22, 2001