Should theTaleban Participate In A Coalition?

Great Debates
1

There seems to be serious discussion going on in political circles concerning whether or not the Taleban should participate in any new government coalition overseeing Afghanistan. Should they be allowed to do so in view of their complicity with Bin Laden’s organization?

Don’t let there be any doubt as to direct cooperation between the two. Please consider that Masood, the Northern Rebel Leader, was assassinated in a cowardly suicide bomb attack with all the earmarks of a classic bin Laden operation. Likewise, the Taleban Mullahs have certainly had a difficult time keeping track of the World’s Most Wanted Man™ within their relatively tiny borders.

The cozy relationship that these two enjoy should suffice as reason for any necessary operations to remove them both. Whatever minor reductions in crime and drug growing (which will resume shortly now that the Taleban’s supply chain is cut off) don’t even begin to offset the extreme misogyny and curtailment of human rights involved. As it is, the Taleban have already broken into the World Relief food supplies sent to help the Afghani people.

I believe the Taleban have shown themselves as utterly incompetent to hold the reins of power. Their continuing to do so will only result in a recurrence of what we have suffered. Who knows what insane schemes these fanatical zealots might have? Merely thinking of how vulnerable our free society is gives me the chills. Permitted to remain in place, the Taleban’s brand of incendiary bile will only spawn more of bin Laden’s kind. This cannot be allowed. If the world does not act quickly to discredit and deter such vile aggression, then disaster beckons.

We need to mercilessly prosecute bin Laden and the Taleban with military force. Once deposed they must be interred for the duration of however long it takes for rational rule to be established. Allowing the Taleban any credibility whatsoever at this point is a very dangerous thing. To give them the air of legitimacy devolving from governmental oversight would be to absolve them and deny their extraordinarily repressive mentality and methods. No such thing should be allowed to happen.

After reading Muslim Guy’s thread my convictions about how warped and twisted the Taleban’s interpretation of Islam are were only strengthened. I do not see any value to their participation in modern society. They almost seem a throwback to the intensely suspicious and prejudiced behavior of village dwellers during the dark ages. To try and assimilate such a virulent strain into Afghanistan’s society may be both toxic to it and exceptionally risky for the rest of us as well. It’s not often I find myself advocating something as despicable as Zero Tolerance, but this is certainly one of those occasions.

Your comments please.
PS: For those of you have read this far and to some who have criticized me for this, I would also like to demonstrate that “T-a-l-e-b-a-n” is another accepted spelling of the word. Here is a snippet of headlines from the BBC News.

WATCH/LISTEN

ON THIS STORY

The BBC’s Jane Peel in Washington
“With India and Pakistan now on board, the chances of success (finding Bin Laden) improve”

Key stories
Latest report
Clinton ordered killing
Taleban under siege
Passengers ‘heroes’

Correspondent reports
Reporting under cover
Middle class killers
Afghanistan waits
Pakistan’s refugee fears

New York despatches
To rebuild or not?
Baseball honours dead

Background
Osama Bin Laden
Who are the Taleban?
Q & A: Airport security

[sub]BOLDING MINE[/SUB]

2

Not sure if they should but don’t think the Taleban would. Taleban did not make a settlement with Masood, have piss poor relations with all of their neighbors with the possible exception of Pakistan, and haven’t shown themselves willing to negotiate or to share power with anyone except for OBL. The Taleban also allow radicals from neighboring countries to train within Afganistan and offer them a safe harbor of sorts.

Based on past history and their own virulent form of extremist Islam, the Taleban don’t give any confidence that they would take part in some sort of equitable power share.

Zenster, are you interested in only narrowly discussing whether or not the Taleban should be in a ruling coalition? This would expand the OP, but if the Taleban are not part of a coalition, then who is going to prevent anarchy? How do we get the regional players to agree to something and what would that something be? Obviously objectives might be to a) not cause mass deaths among the civilian population either directly or indirectly, b) not destabilize the region, c) not create a appearance of a war on islam or against muslims, d) not get bogged down in an unending peace keeping mission, e) not leave Afganistan forever dependant on foreign aid, f) create a stable environment so that Afganistan can rejoin the family of nations and g) the US can improve relations with the regional players involved.

3

I can only predict some sort of coalition government. The current rage for concensus politics will almost guarantee that. It seems as though this will require some sort of stabilizing presence of arms such as the UN or the anti-terrorist coalition. When a voting public has hold of the nation such anarchy might not have such a good chance.

I think it is readily agreeable that the Taleban brand of dogma is wholly unacceptable to mainstream Moslem religion. There should be ample motivation for the more moderate Arab nations to wish for the Taleban’s exclusion. They are often as sick of terrorism as we are. This alone gives ample reason for common cause. Few intelligent people desire to be ensconced in such a repressive society as the Taleban envision.

I think that carefully distinguishing the real foe involved will draw sufficient distinctions between Muslims and these fanatics. I also believe it is incumbent upon these same Muslims to some degree distance themselves from the Taleban.

For all of us to vocally and demonstrably eschew the methods and ideologies of terrorism is a small step in the right direction.

4

Zenster: Your spelling of Taleban/Taliban is just fine :slight_smile: . It just reflects the difficulty of transcribing a language from one alphabet to another ( as in Koran/Quran/Qur’an or the endless variations on Qadaffi ).

I actually largely agree with your point. At least in some particulars.

The problem is a substantial portion of Afghanistan’s population are, figuratively speaking, living in dark age villages. A significant percentage, perhaps a significant majority, of the Pushtun population is socially reactionary and religiously conservative. I want to call them feudal, but they’re actually more tribal. The balance of power has always rested in collective hands of the Pushtun clans ( who have always been armed ). In the late 70’s, before the war began, the Afghan army numbered 100,000, recruited mainly from minority groups in the north. The clans were estimated to be able to raise 200,000 lightly armed, but ferocious, levies. Thus was the balance of power precariously maintained in a system set up by 19th century Afghan kings.

My understanding is that the Taliban per se only account for part of the assessed Taliban forces. The rest are allied fighters from assorted clans bound to the Taliban by a network of tribal alliances. Interestingly enough, the leadership of the Taliban, like the majority of the old Afghan army officer corps, is mostly drawn from the old royal Durani clan ( Ahmed Shah Abdali created the modern state of Afghanistan in 1748, the Abdali clan name was later changed to Durani ). Given this I think trying to isolate the Taliban by working at untangling and isolating them from this web of alliances is a viable strategy.

The problem is that even once the Taliban and al-Qaeda are eliminated from the scene, the forces of religious conservatism will remain ingrained in a large chunk of the populace. Even the Northern Alliance ( who I hope ARE NOT put in place as a caretaker government - they’re scarcely better that the Taliban in many respects ) has its share of zealots. These conservatives ( mostly tribal ) will have to be dealt with, because they are simply too numerous, well-armed, and pugnacious to be isolated from any political decision.

Now I don’t think it is impossible to come to an accomodation with these conservatives. The vast majority, I’m sure, have no interest in bombing the U.S. - If anything they’ve traditionally been isolationist and xenophobic. But it will involve separating the wheat from the chaff among the religious zealots. Because some zealot or other will haveto be included. But they needn’t, and shouldn’t, be from the ultra-orthodox, repressive, and terribly tainted Taliban - On that I agree.

I also have hopes that a Marshall Plan of sorts can be implemented to eventually bring that country out of the middle-ages. Education, better health, and increased prosperity are some of the best foes of extreme social reaction.

  • Tamerlane
5

Thank you for the extremely informative post, Tamerlane.

China Guy, feel free to broaden the scope. My main concern is with the discrediting of the Taleban. They must be shown to be the violent hidebound tyrants that they are.

6

The trouble is, if we remove the Taleban, what do we replace them with? I don’t think the Northern Alliance is any better - they’ve been accused of mass rape and massacres (Source: AP). We already know the Taleban’s record on human rights (not to mention what they did to the Societ-installed leader); the NA is an unknown. Plus they might have their own agenda…