Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Night of the Living Taliban

(I would read this post on the Taliban before reading the article, if you choose to do so.)
With the assurance that all combat operations will end in Iraq by late 2010, and that our troops will be evacuated by 2011, President Obama now refocuses American foreign policy and troops on fighting the problems in Afghanistan. However, the situation in Afghanistan is much like having a house whose occupants you evicted, you left for a while to deal with other houses and now those original occupants are back and bugging the current owners. Apparently, the Taliban are back and causing enormous problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But first, a little history of the Taliban (because I think it's important for later on):
The Taliban (which sort of means "religious students") started as a mujahideen ("holy warriors") group back when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. When the Soviets retreated, the Soviet-backed government had hard times trying to control the conflicting mujahideen and ultimately failed into obscurity around the early 90s, letting Afghanistan fall into the hands of corrupt warlords holding sway over their local territories. The Taliban up to this point, had been composed of various factions of religious students who had fought the Soviet occupation but were still unorganized and unpowerful when they were separated. However, in 1994, the Taliban united under the local faction of religious students in the city of Kandahar, taking that city, then began a push that eventually ended up with the now united Taliban capturing the capital city of Kabul and thus taking control of Afghanistan in 1996. At the head of the Taliban was a fierce cyclops of a man, Muhammed Omar, a one-eyed cleric who believed devoutly in the practices of Islam. He imposed Sharia, or Muslim law, over Afghanistan, banning education or other rights for women and supporting terrorists in the country. But yet, most citizens were relieved to see him come because he took power from the corrupt warlords and restored a sense of peace and trade to the region that it badly needed. Situations in the country deteriorated under the Taliban's rule, but Afghanistan WAS united (for the most part) rather than involved in an all out civil war. The Taliban continued in their oppressive peace from 1996 until 2001, when the United States invaded and took them out for harboring Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda ("the base" for those who don't know) in their country. The United States forced the Taliban out of power by aiding the opposing northern alliance of Afghan tribes and by bombing key Taliban military installations. The Taliban fell out of power and the new government, led by a funny-hat wearing man by the name of Karzai, seemed fit to rule instead. We thought that the Taliban was dead. Most of their leaders had been killed or had fled, and the Taliban as a whole seemed to have lost all power. We thought wrong. While the United States was fighting for six years in Iraq, the Taliban had come back from the dead, like very determined zombies. Violence and attacks by the Taliban have been increasing annually, with two NATO troops being killed just today in a car bombing. Their ties to Al-Qaeda have only strengthened and they are making a comeback. Yet, now that the Iraq War is (hopefully) winding to a close with the agreements that we will have our troops out within a year or two, the United States is ready to come back into Afghanistan and kick some ass! But it's not as simple as we found it. We can't just focus on Afghanistan if the Obama Administration is serious about taking down Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who support them. There's a problem, though, in that the Taliban and the majority of their ethnic make-up, the Pashtuns, have very strong ties to not only Afghanistan, but Pakistan. We didn't eradicate the Taliban, we just let them slip through our fingers into Pakistan where they've been gaining strength and occasionally mounting attacks into Afghanistan. Muhammed Omar, the cyclops leader of the Taliban, still eludes capture and the Taliban themselves guarunteed a safe haven for themselves while we were busy dealing with the climax of violence in Iraq, around late 2006 to early 2007. In those years, ex-president of Pakistan Musharref ("friend" of the United States) signed a deal saying the Taliban could hold sovereignty and rule over the area they had been basing in, including the Pakistani city of Quetta, which seems to be the stronghold of the group. Fans of the agreement argue that it contains the Taliban and helps prevent more factions from springing up elsewhere. Critics say it gives the Taliban and thus, also Al-Qaeda, a base of operations. However, this region and the city of Quetta are where "Cyclops" Omar and the rest of the Taliban have been planning against the new Afghan government and the resurging United States' plans of operation. The Pakistani government (without Musharref now) have seemed ambivalent towards the Taliban living within their borders. The Taliban have fought against the established government and caused trouble for the current leaders. And thus, according the the BBC, "Mr Obama has pledged substantial economic assistance for Pakistan - more than $1bn (£684m) annually over the next five years - but the money will depend on the army's performance against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. " While Obama was at the G20 conference and touring Europe, he sent special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to the capitals of the those respective countries to "clarify Washington's thinking" and guaruntee the funding to the Pakistani Government. However, at the same time, according to the New York Times, "American officials say that Pakistan's military intelligence agency has continued to offer money, supplies and guidance to the Taliban forces in Afghanistan as a proxy to help shape a friendly government there once American forces leave." Pakistan's government refuses to be resolute on where it stands and could become a threat to the United States when we start to focus our efforts on destroying Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Afghan War might just expand to be the Afghan-Pakistani War and destroying the terrorist organization and capturing Osama Bin Laden could become bigger than just "refocusing our troops in Afghanistan."
Obama "unveiled a new strategy which suggested both Afghanistan and Pakistan needed to be fully engaged in the confrontation if the militants were to be defeated." (BBC) The presence of the Taliban in Pakistan is a big threat to the United States for two reasons: one) The Taliban have been closely interconnected with Al-Qaeda for decades, and their presence in Pakistan means there is an Al-Qaeda threat in Pakistan. and two) their presence in Pakistan gives a major base of operations to oppose any economic prosperity and peace United States' troops could fight for in Afghanistan.

I wanted to make sure people understood the background if this war gets bigger. Couple of questions though: Should we continue to fund Pakistan when we know there performance against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been shaky in the past? Would it be reasonable for the United States to expand it's war against terror into Pakistan, or would we be disrespecting the rules of internation law and sovereignty by exercising our own views and wills on a certain group? What should we do and how much power do we have to eliminate threats like terror in other people's countries? and to that same effect, what right do we have to carry on with drone attacks in Pakistan, and what does that show if our attacks are inhuman?

My information on the Taliban came from my own memory and summaries from the New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/) and infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html). The future plans of the Obama administration came from the article from the BBC and from the administration's website (whitehouse.gov).

3 comments:

Aimee Gavette said...

We are fighting a war on culture. We can claim that it is a war on terrorism, but what we are trying to destroy is a countries beliefs and culture. We may not want to destroy these things but we are trying to destroy it. This is a country, a region, where people have been fighting since the dawn of time, fighting for water, fighting to practice their religion, just fighting. This is a culture that is devout in their religion, and has spent centuries fighting to protect this. And now, they are doing what they have done for centuries, protecting what they cherish most the best way that they know how. How do we stop this? How do we stop people from blowing themselves up because they are so committed to their faith that they consider it an honor to die for it? This is an entire culture, a completely foreign world that Americans have no hope of understanding, and we hope that if we kill off the exsisting taliban that will solve the problem? It won't. There will always be more young men willing to die for their beliefs. We are going at this with the wrong approach. The real problem is that there isn't a sufficient system of education in many Middle Eastern countries. Young people are living in the mountains, given little to no education untill the taliban comes along and gives them the oppertunity to go with them and receive an education. The taliban is providing a service that needs to be performed. They are educating the youth of Pakistan, thus ensuring an ever ready supply of new terrorists. If instead, we went into Pakistan and helped to builf schools in these little mountain villages, suddenly we are breaking the cycle. The taliban no longer has the recruits it needs. So no, I don't think that continuing this war is going to help things. If you cut off Medusa's heads she just grows more, just like the taliban. I've been reading "Three Cups of Tea", which is a book about a man who is building these schools in Pakistan, maybe someone should tell Obama that he should read it.

Rebecca Nagel said...

I found this background information extremely interesting and it makes me wonder if Obama has the same information we do. I for one am fully for stopping the war on terrorism because we've taken the name too literally. It's the irony the world sees over and over again. We kill to stop the killing. If we take the logical approach for long term peace and sustainable relationships with middle eastern countries, what we should have done when this first began back with the first George Bush, not only educate ourselves, but to educate them, so that instead of forcing a change on them we could aid them as a people to get the change they wanted in their country. We needed to understand more about psychology and understanding how these people will react to our actions so that we could have made the right choices that would end in peace, not this never ending circle of hatred. We kill one of them, more rise up to revenge them, they kill one of ours, we rise up to avenge them. We have not learned from our past actions and so we continue to make the same mistakes because we still lack understanding, or a willingness to understand. If we don't understand what we're doing wrong, if we don't break the cycle, when will the killing end?

Oliver Draper said...

I have to agree with Aimee. A lot of this is misunderstanding between two entirely different cultures. One cannot solve everything with education though. Many Americans, myself included, would like to see Osama finally captured or killed. Also, while educating young men in the middle east may help, some of them believe that western culture must be destroyed or that it is evil as part of their religion. Those men cannot be educated out of their beliefs.