BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


G Morrison WTC opinion-links?

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
Ethan Hawke
10:44 / 24.10.01
I don't think it is particularly edifying or rewarding to listen to someone who takes a stance of expertise, as you did, and then backs off and claims that he's not an expert either. That's for all intents and purposes what you did during the course of the argument. It may not have been you intention, but that's how it came across. I think, if you really believe that most people's opinions about the conflict are "ridiculous" or ignorant because of their misunderstanding of cultural issues, you must believe you understand these cultural issues better than they do. You believe that you at least understand enough to know when someone is making a "ridiculous" statement. So the very least you can offer the assembled is an example of an "unridiculous" opinion about the conflict, which you really refused to do, aside from some expressing some general concerns about the mental environment in the US and UK. If you know the precise difference between the way the Taliban functions as opposed to the US Senate, for example, let's hear it. I'm interested, and I'm sure a lot of other people are as well. You must know something about the subject if you are willing to regard other's views as primitive or unenlightened.

(As a postscript: I'm not too much interested in "arguing" with you, as I stated before that my disagreement with your original post had a lot to do with your tone and what I perceived as unclear meaning. If you want to talk about cultural differences and debate how much they matter in the conflict, I am up for that.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:22 / 24.10.01
Very rough and incomplete sketch of a few of the issues which might be raised concerning the homogeneity of the "Taliban".

"Taliban" military forces, that is to say forces which might be expected to support the maintenance of Taliban control over areas of Afghanistan, are drawn from the products of the Madrassas, Islamic religious schools, who are generally Pakistani or Afghani, and generally follow a Taliban (Hanafi) line, or from existing Mojahaddin companies, whose commanders threw in their lot with the Taliban either for reasons of finance, personal safety, ideology oe pragmatism, or post-purge survivors of the old Communist Afghanistan military - most but not all of these of these from the Pashtun nationalist element, a small number of volunteers from the Arab nations, who generally share a Sunni ideology and believe themselves to be serving the cause of Islam, and a larger number of Pakistani volunteers, connected by ties of religion, tribal loyalty, Pashtun nationalism et alia. Al-Qaeda and other training bases hold other volunteers and irregular forces - the Harkat-al-Jehad al-Islami, and the Harkat-al-Mojahaddin, along with splinter groups. All of these could notionally be described as "Taliban forces".

The former Mojahaddin fighters are primarily made up of largely Pashtun or (to a far lesser degree) Tajik veterans of the wars against Russia, and of "Afghans" - so called because they are not Afghans (who says three decades of war damages your sense of humour?) - hired zealot guns brought in through the Pakistani secret services with CIA cash to fight the Russians, who have subsequently stuck around. Plus the new generation of younger men, some trained in Mojahaddin camps, who may or may not have religious loyalties to the Hanafi Sunni Pashtun axes, or may be career military, or conscripts, or see the Taliban as an alternative to the warlords.

Taliban armour is theoretically grouped into
an amoured brigade, but this is broken up to supplement infantry more often than not, and has no strong brigade-level command. It is theoretically under the control of the Kabul Army Corps. Outside Kabul, the dividional structure breaks down completely. Military power is strongest in Kabul and Herat, with sizable garrisons in Jalalabad, Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif. If an attack is to be made, a task force is thrown together according to what can be agreed upon and organised between the local administrators, who are "Taliban" but may or may not be religious scholars - "Taliban". Commanders of task forces are established through geography, size fo contribution and other factors on a case-by-case basis. There are different schools of thought within the Taliban, and within the broader "Taliban" forces a diversity of interest and concept which allows for the kinds of shifts in allegiance which delivered much of Afghanistan to the Taliban in the first place.

Add to this undisclosed numbers of mercenaries, military and technical advisers, Pakistani intelligence workers who probably should have gotten the Hell out of Dodge, and so on.

To minimise frictions, soldiers are generally segregated by race, district and tribe.

This confederation - the "Taliban" - is supervised notionally by the "Taliban". More precisely, by the Shura, which is notionally composed of the 30 most senior Taliban but has apparently opened its doors to the more powerful local potentates in the "Taliban"-controlled regions - who may be Pashtun, who may be Sunni, who may be sympathetic to the Hanafi project. At the core of the Shura is a group of eight talibs, with a power base leaning towards Kandahar. Then, of course, there's bin Laden, whom the Mojahaddin respect for his support, whom the Talibs respect for his financial backing, and who may or may not be Mullah Omar's father-in-law. Mullah Omar is referred to as the Emir of the Taliban, but isn't.

These factors are all ambiguous and subject to change, of course. Nobody knows what's goign on half the time...

In terms of structure and communciations it is quite a different proposition to, say, the US Senate.

Just a thought.
 
 
Ierne
16:23 / 24.10.01
Very rough and incomplete sketch of a few of the issues which might be raised concerning the homogeneity of the "Taliban"... – Haus

Smooth out the rough edges and you'd have a great article for Tom!

Thanks for the info & clarifications.
 
 
grant
10:39 / 25.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:
[QB]Very rough and incomplete sketch of a few of the issues which might be raised concerning the homogeneity of the "Taliban"... – Haus

Smooth out the rough edges and you'd have a great article for Tom!
[QB]


motion seconded.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:59 / 25.10.01
quote:Originally posted by The Lower Haus:
%snip%


Oh, all right, I give. Very impressive, Mr. Haus. The minutiae of "Taliban" armour may only be of interest to military planners, though. Remind me never to play Risk with you.

I'm not entirely convinced that pointing out that what the US media calls "The Taliban" has a very heterogenous composition, striated on ethnic, religious, educational, and economic lines totally invalidates even the most blunt and unsophisticated opinions, like say "nuke the Taliban." When push comes to shove, these groups are united by at least one thing in the current conflict: a desire to defend their (adopted in some cases) home.

Furthermore, I could provide an analogous examination of the forces attacking Afghanistan: Something like this:

Very rough and incomplete sketch of a few of the issues which might be raised concerning the homogeneity of the "United States" that is attacking Afghanistan.

"The United States", specifically its apparatus of punishment, the military, is composed of several different branches under separate chains of command. The US Army is drawn primarily from the lower educated and economic classes, and contains a larger proportion of African Americans than society as a whole. Units are divided up according to their specialties, with Special Forces (Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force, etc (which incidentally are over 90% caucasian) having a separate chain of command and more autonomy to make battlefield decisions. The army is entirely volunteer, with participants motivated out of desire for economic advancement, education subsidies, desire for discipline public service, or patriotism.

The US airforce contains a larger proportion of college educated individuals in combat roles. Also interesting to note that female Americans are for the first time flying combat missions and are allowed in 99% of combat roles.

US forces also apparently include some British units of air power that were sent by that government to "combat terror." The composition of these forces is probably similar to US forces and they're motivated by essentially the same things.

The United States forces are nominally under the command of the Executive branch of the United States, according to the Constitution of that country. War plans are in fact debated by bodies called the "cabinet" and "the joint chiefs of staff." These bodies are primarily composed of white male protestants. Significant factions exist in the government, including those assembled around the State Department, which favored at least originally a more limited approach, and those at Defense, who advocated broadening the current action to include other nations such as Iraq or Somalia. We must remember that members of the cabinet can be replaced by the President at any time for any reason. George W. Bush is commonly referred to as the President of the United States, but this is perhaps a figurehead role for him.

A body called the Congress has oversight role for US military action, but as of now the more powerful of the two bodies that make up that institution, the Senate, has chosen to cede much of its power to the Executive. The Senate is made up of "Republicans" and "Democrats" who have different goals for the domestic policies of their country and thus may change their foreign policy goals according to public sentiment with the war effort. Pollsters constantly monitor this sentiment, but they warn that a defeat of US forces could shift it radically.

[ 25-10-2001: Message edited by: todd ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:01 / 25.10.01
I may live to regret posting that.

I should stop trying to be clever.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:04 / 25.10.01
So....your response to the highlighting of certain elements in the organization of the nation or administration your country is notionally at war with is...to say that that sort of thing doesn't matter, followed by a disquisition on the organisation of...um...your own country and its allies.

That's not even sophistical. If you were attempting to *demonstrate* how one-eyed and Western-centric the general understanding of the situation in the US is, it might be.

As it is, it's just a bit saddening.
[ 25-10-2001: Message edited by: The Lower Haus ]

[ 25-10-2001: Message edited by: The Lower Haus ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:25 / 25.10.01
Eh, I was just trying to demonstrate there's more basis for comparison between the two organizations that you seemingly would have us think, w/r/t homogenity of race, economics, and politics.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:31 / 25.10.01
But I don't think Haus' point was about the similarity of the two or otherwise. It was about the fact that talking about "the Taliban" when we don't know what that means is dangerous. Your response was basically "yeah? well what do you know about the Taliban, clever clogs?". He told you what he knew about them - and in the process educated me, probably you and a few others as well, admirably - and your response was "yeah? well none of that matters anyway".
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:37 / 25.10.01
You're right Flyboy. I did call him "clever clogs" and he did show me. And I actually appreciate it, even though he should have gone into Wahhabism (sp?) too. I didn't say it didn't matter though. Or if I did say it, I guess I didn't mean it. I said it might not invalidate some people's opinions. I didn't totally appreciate his first post, where he was ridiculing other people's positions. People shouldn't be afraid of saying what they think here, even if other people think it is "ridiculous."

I suppose I lost this one, and I'll take my lumps like a mensch. Or try to.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
18:34 / 25.10.01
Clever clogs??

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:21 / 26.10.01
Ah, well, that could be because I know dick about the Wahabbi...

Extreme form of Sunni Islam, as I understand, practised by Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (of Saudi Arabia fame)...named (allegedly) after Mohammed bin Abdul Wahab, who sought to reprioritise Tawheed (the Oneness of Allah - don't ask me, but apparently there is a school of thought that sees Islam as barkingly polytheist). The Hanafi sect of the Taliban has been identified as a form of Wahabbism - I think because they share madrassas, and are both bang up for flogging people. Ideologically similar. Wahabbi groups were funded by the Saudis in the struggle for power in Afghanistan, but seem subsequently to have found common cause with the Taliban, at least in a fondness for strict application of a slightly kinky form of Islamic law.

The Wahabbi tend not to get mentioned too often in discussions of Aghanistan, since we already have well-made Taliban bogeymen, but crop up a reasonable amount in Chechnya, in a not dissimilar role.

Oh, and I think it forms the intellectual basis for Qatar's form of state religion, but you would really have to talk to somebody whop knows the area about that.
 
 
Axel Lambert
13:20 / 28.10.01
quote:Originally posted by count adam:
Harry, if you're interested, do an internet search and look at all the various things the US has vetoed at the UN. it may illuminate the US's stance on certain issues a little more clearly.


And this would make the US as bad as the Al Quaeda (which Grant claims and I reacted upon)?
 
 
king_of_terror
07:35 / 29.10.01
this redundant argument is in other threads of you care to look. The USA is 'bad', or not, depending on your POV. It seems the Americans here, while not liking elements of their society, are pretty content to have things remain the way they are, and various others backing them up ( i can think of one sanctimonious Australian) so have a look and join in on one. I lost my zest when i posted about "probably getting bombed again" and Frances told me "now you know how it feels".
I already know Frances, more than you ever will.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply