Is there any reason to believe the Northern Alliance are any better than the Taliban? It’s even been my understanding that people defect back and forth all the time, so how could they be much different?
Would they have turned over bin Laden? Are they not also extremists? Do they treat women any better? Would they have saved the Buddha statues?
I really don’t know, does anyone have any ideas? Speculations? Links?
The Northern Alliance is what is left of the squabbling warlords who were successful in encouraging the Soviets to go home and then successful in pulling down the Soviet puppet regime. They are a mixed bag of people we can probably work with and people we would probably prefer to not know.
This is one reason that the U.S. has supported efforts (through intermediaries) to encourage the deposed king to return and attempt to establish a coalition government. It is also the reason that the U.S. has supported several NA and former mujehideen non-NA leaders who have gone back into Taleban-held Afghanistan trying to talk up the notion of a Grand Council of tribal leaders.
If we simply allowed the current NA to take over, they would very likely re-commence the internecine warfare that allowed the Taleban to gain control, to begin with (and a “new” Taleban would probably arise within the Pushtu ethnic group that makes up the majority of Southern Afghanistan). If the U.S. “picks” a government, there will almost certainly be a civil war to oppose our choice (and we will lose the support of Pakistan and other nations who do not want U.S. puppets on their borders).
Our best hope is that we can encourage enough parties from throughout Afghanistan to come together in (moderate) good faith to establish an inclusive government that allows each region and ethnic group to have a voice, then provide enough aid and support to persuade them that they do not need to continue their warfare for another 20 years.
I wish us luck.
They’re essentially the pre-Taliban government, more or less the same guys the Soviets were there to prop up during the 80s.
Hmmm, obviously tom and I have been reading different sources. From what I understand, however, it was the Taliban who finally succeeded in pulling down (or, more precisely, stringing up) the pro-Soviet regime. Wasn’t President Najibullah–it was him and his brother who were publicly hung when the Taliban took Kabul–the same guy who was in charge when the Soviets pulled out?
Dostum, the Uzbek warlord is the main Soviet ex-ally. He is also presently one of the weaker military presences in the alliance. A lot of the alliance is also former mujahidiin, such as the late Massoud.
Frankly, as I said in another thread, trying to understand Afghani politics through modern political eyes is going to get you in major misunderstandings. Afghanistan is tribal and ethnic.
As for whether the Northern Alliance are extremists, well they are anti-Taleban for many many reasons and one can not profitably make generalizations other than few folks take quite as benighted view of Islam as the coterie of Mullah Omar and the hard-core Pashtun medresahs.
As for the statues, well they had survived right through the war so I guess that rather asnwers your question there.
Else, as for treatment of women, that will depend on ethnic group and tribal tradition. The best anyone is going to get in the short term is removal of the generalized oppression that the Taleban instituted.
This is a country that has not known peace since 1979, where the Taleban were at first welcomed as a respite.
Think about that.
Frankly I don’t see any need to impose too much on the transitional government other than enough equity between regions and groups to ensure that it doesn’t collapse. Their societies are going to need to heal.
When the Taliban took power in Kabul and killed Najibullah, he was no longer in power. IIRC, he had been holed up in a UN compound; the Mujahideen-based government that was ruling then, and which the Taliban displaced, had been willing to respect that, but the Taliban went in and took him and killed him.
Well, since the NA took Mazar -i- Sharif there are reports that men have shaved their beards and women have removed their Burqas (sp?). I heard these reports on BBC radio, but i don’t know where their source was.
So it would appear that the NA are less fundamentalist than the taliban.
Whether they’re nicer people or not remains to be seen, i guess. There are some pretty lurid stories about the behaviour of the warlords.
That alone makes me feel a little more hopeful.
I’m very discouraged. We (the US) seem to be locked into a single strategy. (1) Bomb the place. (2) Find the oposition and back them. Don’t consider any questions as to what sort of people they are. They oppose our enemy, so back them. I don’t have a solution, but surely we can do better then this?
As I understand it, ethnicity counts for a lot in Afganistan. The NA is made up mainly of minority ethnic groups. The majority ethnic group will never stand for a government they don’t dominate. If we kill bin Laden and his top people, put the NA in charge of a new govt, and pull out, won’t civil war just resume immediately? And then what? Years of war and chaos? The Taliban back in power? Someone else just as bad winding up on top?
I’m not very comfortable with the portrayal of the NA as freedom fighters no more than I was with the Contras in the 80s.
From some articles I had read these folks were overthrown by the Taliban because they were thugs themselves. Now I Notice that Bush has twice requested the NA slow their advance on Kabul. Why? Because if they take the Capital the Southern tribes will not back the US anymore and The US wants Kabul to be run by several of these groups who will turn on each other in a heartbeat.
To be honest Afghanistan politics make my head spin and whenever I see CNN try to portray these groups as good guys and bad guys I get irritated.
so what do I think?
I think I’m nauseous and have a headache… just hope its not a virus.
Actually, this is one area where it appears that the U.S. Administration is trying to do the right thing.
The U.S. asked that the NA not rush off to conquer Kabul. The NA, apparently believing that we were not serious, loaded up their trucks and headed for Kabul, anyway. At that point, the U.S. stopped providing air support for the advance.
Meanwhile, for several weeks there have been reports that various leaders of the former mujihideen have been spirited into and out of Taleban-controlled Afghanistan, seeking to build a coalition of tribal leaders to select a post-Taleban government. At least two of these former mujihideen are from the Pushtun South (home of the Taleban) and they are looking to find leaders willing to join a new coalition, rather than blindly supporting their fellow-Pushtun Taleban. At the same time, the U.S. has quietly supported the idea of the former king coming out of retirement/exile in Italy, not to “take over” the country, but to attempt to encourage the formation of a great council of tribal leaders to select a new government.
How successful will any of this be? I have no idea. Are we liable to wind up backing the “wrong” people or backing the “right” people in a clumsy way that will get them ignored or killed? Possibly.
However, we do appear to be attempting to make good, long-term decisions. (With luck, we’ll even let the Afghanis choose their own government so as not to have the new administration condemned as U.S. puppets.)
Is there really an effort to paint the Northern Alliance as “heroic freedom fighters”? Most of the mainstream media accounts I’ve seem simply describe them as “the Taliban opposition.” A few places (notably Time magazine) mention that the NA is almost as nasty and repressive as the Taliban, and even cite Bush Administration officials as acknowledging their reluctance to set the NA leaders as the new Afghanistan government.
For once, it seems (to me) like we realize that the enemy of our enemiy is not necessarily our friend, which IMO is a good thing.
Iranian support of the Northern Alliance makes it difficult for us to call them “freedom fighters”. That aside, we do seem to be attempting to avoid setting up a puppet regime. The longer that’s delayed, the longer we have to find a more tenable solution.
The Northern Alliance is an ally of convenience. Period. And not much of one at that.
The reason we are not going to fail the way the Soviets did is that we have absolutely no intention whatsoever of invading, occupying and installing a pro-American regime in Afghanistan. There will probably be ground forces at some point, but our goal is to destroy Afghanistan’s terrorist resources, both hardware and human.
If, say six months or a year from now, the “Northern Alliance” is in power and they are still veiling & beating their women, repressing other religions, measuring beards etc. etc., um, who cares?
But if satellite photos show government sponsored terrorists camps operating again, we will begin carpet bombing. Again.
Doesn’t look too good, so far. From the NY Times: Northern Alliance Breaks Taliban Lines North of Kabul
Question that I have is what is the effect of these atrocities on US popularity in the region? On the one hand, the NA are quite likely viewed as US stooges by the Pashtuns, and they could blame the US for any atrocities committed. OTOH, if the US succedes in putting together some sort of comparatively non-violent government perhaps it will be more acceptable in light of the alternative. (I recall reading that towards the end of WW2, Germans were praying to be conquered by the Americans, rather than the Russians).
Looks to me like we’ve got three options:
(a) Status quo. The Taliban continue to kill everybody they don’t like and generally act nasty and brutish. The Northern Alliance continues to kill everybody they don’t like and generally act nasty and brutish. Al-Qaeda continues to kill everybody they don’t like (i.e., us) and generally act nasty and brutish.
(b) Back the Northern Alliance sufficiently so that their nasty brutishness takes care of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
© Go in ourselves, Soviet-style.
Personally, I’d say option (b) is the clear winner here. Afghanistan continues to be a shithole in all three options, but we clearly incur significant loss of life with (a) and ©.
First, minty has identified the options correctly and (b) at the very least has some chance of eventually leading to a better life for Afghanis. No other choice does.
Second, in regards to atrocities. Well, previaling standards. It is a bit naive to think that after the recent history of Taleban rule that front line soldiers are going to be treated to Geneve Convention rules. Even US troops have not done a sterling job of that in the heat of the moment.
Only a few days ago I was speaking with a friend of sorts who lived in Aghanistan and knew something about the Taleban taking Mazar Eshariif. There was a terrible slaughter, above all of the Shiite Hazars. He described some chilling scenes. To think that front-line executions are not going to happen (and in fact will actually move Afghani opinion that much) is to apply another world’s standards, an alien world.
The important part is to avoid massacres of Pashtun in Kaboul and other places. If one can do that, then I think scattered battlefield executions of combatants is not a problem.
Tomndebb mentioned a fourth option, which was the former King. I’ll get back to that later.
The Northern Alliance is not as fundamentalist in it’s stance as the Taliban is. They allow women to work and girls to attain higher education. However, as someone noted in an example above, they are not known for their respect of human rights.
The UN seat is still held by ousted President Rabbani. He is another figure who is being approached as a mediator, along with the ex-King. However, Rabbabi is an ethnic Tajik and while he may be acceptable to a minority, it is doubtful that the Pashtun’s would accept him.
This is where the ex-King, King Zahir Shah, comes in. He is a Pashtun, and one of the few generally respected figures in Afghanistan. His leadership could allow reconciliation between the Pashtun dominated south and the Tajik/Uzbek/Hazarh North.
The plan is to set him up in an interim government. This would be more acceptable to all involved if it were brought about by the Afghans or the UN as opposed to the US.
Under his previous rule, he introduced a new constitution that provided for an elected Parliament, political parties, and freedom of the press. He also encouraged social reform, trying to improve the status of women.
The setbacks are that he is 86. He would not most likely not last long as the head of government.
In addition he has no large political base and some condemn him for his seeming lack of interest in his country. Many perceive him to have done nothing over the last couple of decades, until the events of Sept 11.
Then there is the question of Pakistan’s involvement in selecting the leader of Afghanistan. Pakistan has long been involved in the governance of Afghanistan in some form or another. Should they butt out and allow Afghanistan the ability to elect (in some form) it’s own leader? And if that should be someone other than a Pashtun, would Pakistan accept that?
Should the King be reinstated, his reign would not be very long. There has been some talk that one of the Kings sons, Prince Mir Wais, would be next in line for the throne.
However, no one has been putting forward the return of the Monarchy. The role of the King would have two components. To be a mediator and to call a council of leasders that would allow the election of the government to replace the Taliban.
Li
To be frank, I find this to be a naive objection in most cases. (Dostum however does rather go beyond even the abyssmal local standard) Human rights practices in wartime – which describes Afghanistan ever since 1979 – rarely are well-maintained by any side.
But he has only allowed himself to be put up a symbolic rallying point. All this is post-Taleban in any event. To get to post-Taleban you have to work with option B or C.
One only makes the game worse by pretending that real players are not real players. Frustrate either Paki or Iranian interests too much and you get disaster.
Neither can be cut out just cause we don’t like them
(As an aside, Iranian support for the Hazari section of the NA does not seem to me to impuge their quality as ‘freedom fighters per se’ – Iran’s political system is a hell of a lot healthier than the Gulf states in large part. Just because there is little love lost between us should not blind us to some positives.)
BTW al-Jazeera reports NA forces are now in Kaboul.