There is no concerted effort to win over the Pashtun tribes, and so stymie the swell of people joining or simply fihting alongside the Taliban. Indeed, this was something that was mentioned way back in 2001 — in the words of one Afghani involved in the formative talks, “if the Pashtuns are not kept witin the loop, the country will not be quiet.” And we’re seeing that today.

For better or for worse, Afghanistan is an intensley tribal society, and bombing someone means his whole tribe wants to kill you.

A similar problem happened in Iraq; there was no serious effort to keep the powerful Sunni tribes onside and so prevent foreigners walking around with guns (something not easy to do even if your a Muslim in both Iraq and Afghanistan).

“That’s not to say that’s how it should be, it just seems to be a fact of human psychology. “

Absolutely. I think that’s my point. Just because human psychology is not always perfectly rational does not mean that we should just give up. We should point out and attempt to address such irrational behaviour – particularly when it occurs here in the UK.

The only problem for us rational beings is that we expect rationality from our political leaders. Maybe – in another little irony – that would be irrational…

PG

Very rarely – from the supposed beneficiaries anyway. That’s not to say that’s how it should be, it just seems to be a fact of human psychology. People are remarkably good at glossing over the shortcomings of their own leaders, however excerable they may be, and most people don’t like to see their country invaded, no matter what the declared intentions of the invaders.

Of course, it really doesn’t help if you go about it by supporting the very people that were so appallingly corrupt that opposition to them fuelled the rise of the admittedly excerable crew you’re trying to displace. A change is not always as good as a rest.

As for the overall thrust of this post, I have to (a) completely agree, and (b) comment on the irony of it. It’s pretty much exactly what the US did to the Soviets back in the day – the so-called “Afghan Trap”.

Of course, one might also speculate that exactly the same dynamic is in play on the other side… Whilst Bush says he wants to defeat terrorism, it actually plays quite nicely for him. That’s the worst of it – both sides are invested in keeping the horror show rolling.

Good spot – I hadn’t appreciated that that link was an archive, so by my own argument, the quote is very very suspect and Phil correct to point this out. That’ll teach us to believe everything we read in the Newspapers…

On the substantive:
“He wants and needs us there.”
If you don’t give a toss about your own people, it makes it tremendously easy to play on your opponents’ weaknesses.

He gets a monster PR victory if we call his bluff and withdraw: we’re fucked either way.

That is why the failure of our own PR is so devastating – much more so than any military successes or failures. Ending the routine public beheadings in football stadiums ought to be something can be applauded fairly easily, yet that doesn’t seem to be the case.

If we cannot make a sensible humanitarian case for intervention in Taliban Afghanistan then I struggle to see where we could.

PG

It is slightly odd that he is quoted as saying “if they all gather in Israel”. Can’t imagine Nasrallah ever uses the word “Israel”. Perhaps that was just shorthand in the translation. Anyway, I’m wary as to the accuracy of that particular quotation.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah’s hostility to the existence of the state of Israel is clear enough and they make no secret of it.

But it must be stressed that considering Nasrallah and bin Laden to be part of the same problem would be a mistake. They hate each other almost as much as they hate us. An effective, although possibly morally dubious tactic would be to seek to play them off against each other. Instead, the WonT appears almost designed to drive the two disparate groups into each others arms.

Thanks.

The comment on taking bin Laden’s statements at face value really relates to the “appeasement” argument deployed by some supporters of the WonT. In short, bin Laden says he wants Western countries to withdraw from Muslim countries therefore to do so would be appeasement.

As I said in the post, he deliberately provoked the very thing he says he’s against. In a way, it was actually attacking Afghanistan which was appeasement; that’s what he wanted after all.

Equally, when he says we must withdraw, it’s a bluff. His public statements are deliberately aimed at generating exactly that appeasement response; in essence the purpose of those statements is to make it harder for our leaders to withdraw (while simultaneously projecting the idea that he is leading the “resistance” to potential new recruits). He wants and needs us there.

In that sense, those who use the appeasement arguement are taking his statements at face value and are actually unwitting tools of his strategy.

“It’s the old ‘foreign invader’ thing. Tough one.”

So no matter how vile a regime and how welcome its overthrow, there is never any credit to be given to those who help in that overthrow?

Oh well. I suppose “let them rot” will just have to do.

As for Nasrallah, if the translation is so dubious and the motives of the reporter so suspect, I am surprised that the article is a) still up at the Daily Star and b) unencumbered by any rider or warning as to its accuracy.

However, this is a diversion as I did not refer to the specific “save us from going after them worldwide” quote.

I referred to his intentions and those of his organisation towards Israel, about which>/a> there can be little doubt.

Fred Halliday’s closing para highlights exactly the point I am trying to make:
“I long ago decided, in dealing with revolutionaries and with their enemies, in the middle east and elsewhere, to question their motives and sense of reality, but to take seriously what they stated to be their true intentions. Those words, spoken on the hill overlooking Metulla in 2004, were sincerely meant, and carried within them a long history of fighting, sacrifice and killing. In light of recent events, it would be prudent to assume that much more is to come. “

I had thought of using the Ahmadinejad quote that “Israel must be wiped from the map”, in place of Nasrallah, but refrained on the basis that even he is constrained by realpolitic to some degree. Interesting, though quote that was also disputed, the rather visible proof of its accuracy (scroll to bottom) neatly shows… Nasrallah.

PG

Have you got a source for this? See Charles Glass’s letter here

in the case of Afghanistan, I simply cannot understand why we cannot make some serious hearts and minds gains

It’s the old ‘foreign invader’ thing. Tough one.

This is a great article following a good bit of digging topped up with some very sound analysis.

I have a couple of quibbles, both of which relatively minor:

“He’s evil incarnate but he’s also telling the unblemished truth in his public messages?”

I don’t know that – in OBL’s case in general and certainly not in ALL of his pronouncements in particular – this is strictly fair. I think most commentators generally treat OBL with some measure of suspicion.

Equally, there are some declarations of intentions by some key Islamic figures that we probably should take at face value, such as Nasrallah’s declared intent to destroy Israel entirely. It seems a little silly to ignore or rationalise or “mbunderstand” these to attempt to make him more palatable and/or a victim figure.

Secondly, in the case of Afghanistan, I simply cannot understand why we cannot make some serious hearts and minds gains. Exactly how ludicrously incompetent do you have to be to fail to improve a country that was previously run by the Taliban?

That there can be negativity towards particularly our operations in Afghanistan is just appalling. The suggestion – which appears current in some quarters – that HM Forces are simply engaging in the indiscrimate slaughter of Muslims is fanciful almost to the point of treason.

PG