To Which Taliban Are You Referring?

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/w...rld&adxnnlx=1257703251-9Zk6YnX1JGCJEym81gQTXg


popup.jpg

Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — As it devises a new Afghanistan policy, the Obama administration confronts a complex geopolitical puzzle: two embattled governments, in Afghanistan and Pakistan; numerous militias aligned with overlapping Islamist factions; and hidden in the factions’ midst, the foe that brought the United States to the region eight years ago, Al Qaeda.

But at the core of the tangle are the two Taliban movements, Afghan and Pakistani. They share an ideology and a dominant Pashtun ethnicity, but they have such different histories, structures and goals that the common name may be more misleading than illuminating, some regional specialists say.

“The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion,” said Gilles Dorronsoro, a French scholar of South Asia currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

This week, Mr. Dorronsoro said, as the Pakistani Army began a major offensive against the Pakistani Taliban, many Americans thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban, the force that is causing Washington to consider sending more troops to Afghanistan.

At stake is not just semantics. Grasping the differences between the two Taliban forces, and their shifting relationships with Al Qaeda, is crucial to understanding the debate under way in the White House situation room. Though both groups threaten American interests, the Afghan Taliban — the word Taliban means “religious students” — are the primary enemy, mounting attacks daily against the 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Washington’s biggest fear is that if the Afghan Taliban overrun the country, they could invite Al Qaeda’s leaders back from their Pakistani hide-out.

Alex Strick van Linschoten, a Dutch researcher who lives in Kandahar, in the heart of the Afghan Taliban’s power base, said that while leaders of the two Taliban groups might say that they share common interests, the two movements are quite separate.

“To be honest, the Taliban commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border,” said Mr. Strick van Linschoten, who has interviewed many current and former members of the Afghan Taliban.

In fact, the recent attacks of the Pakistani Taliban against Pakistan’s government, military and police, in anticipation of the army’s current campaign into the Pakistani Taliban’s base in South Waziristan, may have strained relations with the Afghan Taliban, said Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence officer who tracks Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the United Nations.

The Afghan Taliban have always had a close relationship with Pakistani intelligence agencies, Mr. Barrett said recently. “They don’t like the way that the Pakistan Taliban has been fighting the Pakistan government and causing a whole load of problems there,” he said.

The Afghan Taliban, whose group is by far the older of the two forces, have been led by Mullah Muhammad Omar since he founded the movement in 1994. They seeks to regain the power they held over most of Afghanistan before being ousted by the American invasion of 2001.

In an interview this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity, an Afghan Taliban commander expressed sympathy for the Pakistani Taliban, but said, “There will not be any support from us.” He said the Afghan Taliban “don’t have any interest in fighting against other countries.”

“Our aim was, and is, to get the occupation forces out and not to get into a fight with a Muslim army,” the commander added.

Before 9/11, the Afghan Taliban hosted Osama bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Qaeda, but the groups are now separated geographically, their leaders under pressure from intensive manhunts. On jihadist Web sites, analysts have detected recent tensions between Al Qaeda, whose proclaimed goals are global, and the Afghan Taliban, which have recently claimed that their interests lie solely in Afghanistan.

Mr. Dorronsoro, the French scholar, said the Afghan Taliban were a “genuine national movement” incorporating not only a broad network of fighters, but also a shadow government-in-waiting in many provinces.

By comparison, he said, the Pakistani Taliban were a far looser coalition, united mainly by their enmity toward the Pakistani government. They emerged formally only in 2007 as a separate force led by Baitullah Mehsud under the name Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Students’ Movement of Pakistan.

After Mr. Mehsud was killed by an American missile in August, a fellow tribesman, Hakimullah Mehsud, took over after a period of jockeying for power in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Another complication for regional terminology: most leaders of the Afghan Taliban are based in Pakistan, directing their forces from hide-outs across the border. Mullah Omar and his top deputies are believed to be in or around the southern Pakistani city of Quetta. Two other major factions in the Afghan insurgency are led by veteran Afghan warlords, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who are in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where the Pakistan Taliban is strongest.

Al Qaeda’s leaders, including Mr. bin Laden, are believed to be hiding in the same tribal areas of Pakistan. While it has been weakened by American missile strikes, the terrorist network nonetheless is believed to have provided support for the Pakistani Taliban’s strikes against the Pakistani government.

For the United States, regional experts say, the long-term challenge is to devise policies that peel away as many militants as possible from both Taliban forces, isolating Al Qaeda and other hard-liners and strengthening the Pakistani and Afghan governments. But for a non-Muslim superpower, widely resented in the region, that is a tall order.

“At the moment the ground isn’t very well prepared for splitting the militant groups,” said Stephen Biddle, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who spent a month last summer in Afghanistan. “The security trends are running in their favor.”

Of course, if the United States’ enemies in the region are complicated, so are its allies. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai is seen as unwilling to take on corruption and tainted by fraud in the recent election, though he has now agreed to a runoff.

In Pakistan, with 172 million people, a population at least five times as large as that of Afghanistan, power is divided among the army, the intelligence service and two rival political parties — “four actors,” Mr. Biddle said, “each of which sees the threat from the others as bigger than the threat from the militants.”

Polls show that Americans, frustrated by the United States’ supposed allies and confused by the conflict, are losing their fervor for the fight. “The complexity of all this is hard enough for experts to understand,” said Paul R. Pillar, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst now at Georgetown University. “It’s not surprising if it baffles a lot of ordinary people.”
Discuss.
 
If they are so separate, then why does it matter if the border is porous? With all the reports of Taliban fighters crossing back and forth from Pakistan, one would imagine there must be some link.

KABUL, Jan 16 (Reuters) - Taliban fighters have stepped up attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan and are taking advantage of a deal between the Pakistani government and local tribes that was billed as an effort to reduce the threat, U.S. military officials said on Tuesday.

U.S. officials also say the commanders of Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency reside in Pakistan. The Taliban were resurgent in 2006, increasing attacks on NATO troops and Afghan government forces.

"Our military relations, our dialogue between Afghanistan, NATO, the United States and Pakistan is good but I'd also emphasise that we do have a challenge right now with command and control of the Taliban forces that has to be addressed," said Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates began a visit to Afghanistan on Monday, aiming to ensure military commanders have the resources to counter an expected spring offensive by the Taliban.

"The enemy does use both sides of the border, they use the inside of Pakistan as well for command and control," Eikenberry told reporters travelling with Gates.

"And they have senior leaders that operate on both sides."...

Eikenberry said the number of cross-border attacks in that area last month was 200 percent higher than the same period a year ago. He did not give precise figures.

Colonel Tom Collins, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said there were signs the deal with the tribes had worsened the situation.

"We're seeing evidence that the enemy is taking advantage of that agreement to launch attacks into Afghanistan," he told reporters.

"COMMAND AND CONTROL IN PAKISTAN"

Eikenberry said the porous border with Pakistan, where members of the same tribes live on both sides, was a long-term problem which would take time to solve.

U.S. military officials also say they have hard evidence of Taliban fighters crossing the border unimpeded close to Pakistani border checkpoints.

"The safe haven that Pakistan presents cannot be over-emphasised," said a U.S. military intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Command and control resides in Pakistan while operations occur in Afghanistan," the official said.

"Training, financing, recruitment, indoctrination, regeneration and other support activities occur in Pakistan."
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSISL240273



I think the OP article is a bowl of crap assembled by a bunch of peace-nik terrorist apologists. What's the source? Edit: Nice of you to add the source... I figured.

the word Taliban means “religious students”
What century does that person live in?
 
I mean the Afghan Taliban when I say Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban when I say Pakistani Taliban. There are different groups but the overall struggle versus either the Afghan government or Pakistani government means it is forgivable to use broad terms.

Now u
 
I say we call them Pakiban and Afaban. Then, after the CIA inserts Taleb into Iran, we can have Iranaban.

On second thought, let's just stick with one broad term. Differenciating between Talibans is like pointing out the corn grain or peanut in a poo, it's just not necessary... poo is poo. When one of the Taliban "tribes" (IIRC, that's what they are called) becomes substantially different, I'll care.
 
I say we call them Pakiban and Afaban.

Too newspeakish. Also, Taliban DOES mean religious students. The original Taliban was composed of religious students from the Deoband sect and whenever things got a little hairy, their ranks would be replenished from religious students of the madrassas in Pakistan.
 
They both want to establish radical Islamic governments. Both of them should be bombed back to the stone age.
 

What are we supposed to be discussing? Splinters of terrorist organizations?

I mean how many versions and splinter-groups has there been of the IRA over the years?

It happens.
 
Does it really matter? I mean we don't want either one in power anywhere and everyone wouldn't mind if a bullet or two found its way into their heads
 
Too newspeakish. Also, Taliban DOES mean religious students. The original Taliban was composed of religious students from the Deoband sect and whenever things got a little hairy, their ranks would be replenished from religious students of the madrassas in Pakistan.

I'm aware of what it means in Arabic. That, however is different than what it means to the world (or in culture). And the world's use of the term trumps ancient history. Next, you'll be explaining how "fag" just means a bundle of sticks, spare me.
 
Pakistan's stability is the most important thing. We can not let Pakistan collapse. If it ever comes near, India, Israel and America should invade Pakistan and destroy Paki Taliban.

Afghani taliban is only secondary objective.
 
It seems Obama and Clinton agree with you, but that's quite an expansion of the war. Why not go into Iran to stop Hamas and Hez, assuming that nuclear capability is part of your concern?
 
I'm aware of what it means in Arabic. That, however is different thanwhat it means to the world. And the world's use of the term trumps ancient history. Next, you'll be explaining how "fag" just means a bundle of sticks, spare me.

:lol: None of that makes any sense! Knowing the origins of the word helps one to understand how the Taliban came to be and what the nature of their group is like. That's all.
 
But claiming, today and without context (see: OP article), that "Taliban" means "student" is no different than claiming, today and without context, that "fag" means "a bundle of sticks".

Word use and meanings change. People must deal with it. Knowing a word's origin is a nice little story but does not change today's meaning. And today, Taliban means terrorist in the Afghan/Pakistan region - not "student".


the word helps one to understand how the Taliban came to be and what the nature of their group is like

Are you saying that the Taliban, by nature, are students?!
 
Thanks for the lecture. You pretty much inferred a bunch of things I never said. Someone is tense.
 
The article inserts, (almost randomly!), this:

- the word Taliban means “religious students” -

As if it were some kind of fact, ignoring two decades of global common usage. You don't have a problem with that?



The article is crap; unprofessional political hackery disguised as a history lesson. It's intention is to misguide the public about the very real and very direct links and common goals of the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. From the title alone ("Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals"), you know the article is BS. They throw in a few historical facts, but it is completely political.

Their goals are identical: Enslave the population to Islamic Law and rule via terrorism. That is the goal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the same goal of the Taliban in Pakistan. Same goal, exactly. The article ADMITS they have the same goals, then tries to split them by geography... complete BS.
 
One clear reason it matters is that the Pakistan government kinda is friendly and closely linked to one, and is fighting the other. The Pakistan government wouldn't mind an Islamically-defined government to take over Afghanistan because it'd be friendly, and would be anti-India. Conversely, the Afghan Taliban, to at least some extent, sees the Pakistan Taliban as threatening its relationship with its key current and historical patron, and recognises that were it to take power, it would need a friendly Pakistan government across the border.

Another reason is that we've lately started labelling all the anti-government fighters in Afghanistan as "Taliban" even though that's pretty sloppy and US intelligence itself says the majority, up to 90%, are not religiously-motivated fighters but are primarily tribal, fighting because, well, that's what Pashtuns do when there's invaders and occupiers in their land, and a lot of those are only pretty reluctantly and technically in the Taliban "camp" because they're both fighting the government. The Taliban, being dirty foreign "camels" (ethnic slur for Arabs) and seen as not really having local interests at heart, are widely not well-liked.

Defining Afghanistan factions by their Islamicness is kinda useless, they're pretty much all Islamists, on every side. Hell, in the 1990s and up to 2001, before we arrived, the mostly Tajik Northern Alliance and mostly Pashtun Taliban were fighting each other over not over Islamic fundamentalism, but over which group would be the ones to establish a sharia-based state.

It's important to know your insurgency/civil war or it leads to bad policy.
 
Both are very closely connected and can hardly be defeated separately - if Afghan Taleban got its butt kicked, the remaining fighters would move to Pakistan and continue attacking across the border, and vice versa. So both must be eliminated in order to declare "victory" in Afghanistan.

Sadly we are in this mess because the Americans in all their wisdom forgot about finishing the job in 2001 and shifted attention to a country which posed absolutely no terrorist threat to the US. It not only led to a destabilization of Iraq and growing problems in Afghanistan, it also caused the current destabilization of Pakistan.

Job well done. You might as well had done nothing after 9/11 and the whole region would probably have been more stable than it is today.
 
Defining Afghanistan factions by their Islamicness is kinda useless, they're pretty much all Islamists, on every side.
That's like saying the westboro baptist church member is pretty much the same thing as a casual christian... "Defining Christian factions by their Christianess is kinda useless, they're pretty much all Christians, on every side."

There's a big difference between someone that throws acid in a girl's face because she goes to school and whatever level of Islamicness Karzai is. There is a tremendous difference between the Islamicness of a legally wife-killing Imam and the average US muslim.


Of course the "variety" of Islam ascribed to is of the utmost importance when dealing with factions of Afghanistan. What the hell? The wife-slaughtering, genital mutilating crazies are not to be treated the same as a normal modern muslim. If some Christian was trying to do some crazy stuff from the bible, they wouldn't we a welcome partner in government either.
 
Of course. Fact remains, pre-2001 Afghanistan was a civil war between two fundamentalist Islamic factions. Both sides were mujahadeen. Prior to western involvement, the Saudis backed the Taliban, the Iranians backed the Northern Alliance.

The guys we backed, the Northern Alliance, were also known as the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan", the people who were (give or a take the odd defecting general) ousted when the Taliban conquered Kabul from the Islamic State of Afghanistan in the mid 1990s. Aside from the fact that they were Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek rather than Pashtun, and therefore based in the north more than the south, there really wasn't a lot of difference - just ask Human Rights Watch.

What, you think we can get results in Afghanistan without backing Islamists, patriarchs, warlords and tribal leaders? They're pretty much the only real power there.
 
Back
Top Bottom