Northern Alliance and Taliban

Discussion in 'China' started by Elmo, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. Elmo

    Elmo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    17
    "Strategic depth" - that's another debate altogether. Just one quick question, do you not believe that the US also gains from Pakistan having strategic depth versus India having the same?

    I am not shifting the course of this ship to how the US is at fault - I agree Pakistan's policy have been less than flattering for many of its people, but as Muse, one of our members at def.pk, likes to bring up "narrative" aspect of it, the "narrative" here has been tunnelled. Read through the posts here, and besides the jingoism and extreme hatred for a country and it's people, what else is there? I don't even know which post you are referring to when it comes to proscribing blame on the US.

    The Indian narrative (look at Tiki's recent post), solely puts the blame on Pakistan.

    Lastly, pro-invasion or anti-invasion, giving arms to illiterate youth with little to no skills to survive in life otherwise (be it Afghanistan or Bosnia), that's criminal. The US was not justified in training those groups in the 80s. It's a monster that they actively helped create.
     
    The Messiah likes this.
  2.  
  3. Tronic

    Tronic Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    You are right that it is not right to have tunnel vision narratives. So lets snap out of it, and review as to why Pakistan is blamed.

    The US funded the anti-Soviet Mujahideen. Yes.

    Much had changed since than. The US ceased funding once the Soviets withdrew, it was game over. The Mujahideen signed power sharing agreements with each other, the Peshawar Accords, which led all the Mujahideen (barring one, Hekmatyar) to form an interim government, which led to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan being created. It was Pakistan alone which played spoil sport and started to arm and fund anti-Afghan/anti-Mujahideen groups such as Hezb-i-Islami and funding Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a rat who is famous in Afghanistan for double dealing and backstabbing, and is said to have spent more time fighting against other Mujahideen rather than fighting against the Soviets. In this double dealing rat, did the Pakistani government find their ally. Your country funded his militant group, waged war against the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and helped destroy half of Kabul. You wish to blame America for the evils done by your own government alone. The Taliban, which didn't even exist during the Soviet war, was another entity used by your nation against the legitimate Afghan government. Truth is, your government waged war against the majority of Mujahideen fighters which America had funded. Your government created the monster. Not America. It is Pakistanis who need to delve into Afghanistan's history to counter the blatantly false narratives fed by your government to your people.
     
  4. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    It was neither Zia nor Americans. It was the very inception and its grounds for the same that sealed Pakistan's future. Americans only used Pakistan as a condom to be in bed with the islamic fundoos like Mujahideen/Taliban. For that, they paid pak handsomely. Pak, on its part, was more than willing to be used in that manner.

    As for Zia, blame is heaped on him unfairly or atleast he is unnecessarily singled out. Because Pakistan and its rulers have been and will continue to unmistakably radicalise exponentially.

    Pakistan was meant to be what it is today and what it will be tomorrow. Nothing can stop it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  5. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Only one thing I want to say here, US has no hand in creating Taliban, it is an ISI's creation.
     
  6. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    It was Benazir Bhutto who wanted to rein in the independent warlords of Afghanistan post the soviet war. And yes, ISI did that nicely.


    It was the Mujahideens whom US supported. Taliban was formed in 1994, IIRC.
     
  7. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    I think we need to get out of these semantics. The fact of the matter is that Mujahideens transformed or reincarnated as Taliban. Same ideology, same tactics, same goals, same backers, same trainers....etc. The only thing that changed is the scope. Earlier, Mujahideens' primary goal was Soviet Union and its scope was limited to sub-continent. With taliban, under the auspices of PA, the scope became global. It may interest others. But for Indians, all these details dont matter. It is same force with same goals backed by same PA.
     
  8. Tronic

    Tronic Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    You're quite far off the mark with your history.

    The Mujahideen and Taliban were two seperate identities which fought one another. The Taliban may have had some folks who fought against the Soviets, but the Taliban were formed after the Soviets had departed, where else the bulk of the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets founded the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, an entity which the Taliban waged war against. To say that the Mujahideen transformed or reincarnated as the Taliban represents a total lack of understanding of the history of the region. The chaps who fought the Taliban for more than a decade were the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen themselves.
     
    Oracle likes this.
  9. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    Taliban were formed after the Soviet departed while the Mujahideen proceeded to establish a governance. The Taliban defeated this regime and seized power. But who were the Taliban before they became Taliban. Were they ordinary Afghans who were suddenly transformed into a force that could beat a battle hardened Mujahideen? I am therefore assuming that much of Taliban was formed from erstwhile Mujahideens. They may have defeated faction inimical to them in order to gain power.

    Nextly, as I said, the tactics, the ideologies, the backers and trainers(PA) are all same.
     
  10. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    This is where the matter lies. Pak thinks Astan is its backyard and under its sphere of influence and that is why the term strategic depth. Pakistan has no respect for the sovereignty of Astan.
     
  11. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    On the issue of the difference of the Mujahideens and the Taliban.


    The key difference between the original mujahideen and the Taliban is that the former waged a traditional type of jihad. In a traditional jihad, if waged locally, a contest over control of resources takes place between rival strongmen who each run their own private armies. In this scenario, the ultimate legitimacy to rule draws upon military strength, but the contest itself is called jihad simply because Islam is the sole language of political legitimacy......

    The Taliban's conquest of Afghanistan in 1996, by contrast, strayed from the path of tradition. In a striking breach of precedence, the Taliban militia did not make use of their unspoken right to pillage and loot. They searched the conquered populations' homes, but only to confiscate weapons and so ensure a monopoly of violence for their state.......

    The Taliban were exceedingly ignorant – which made them cruel – but there's no doubt that they saw jihad as a means to establish a state rather than legitimacy to pillage a conquered territory. Building a state was of utmost importance to the Taliban because without it the sharia law could not be enforced. If the mujahideen struggled over resources, the Taliban were concerned with religiosity.

    The Taliban's choice of their capital city, Kandahar, was further evidence of their radically new approach to conquest. As already mentioned, historically Kabul drew its importance from the fact that the nation's wealth and the foreign embassies were concentrated there. The mujahideen's vicious fight over the city, which resulted in thousands of dead, and their disregard for public buildings, which they indiscriminately destroyed in rocket attacks, was rooted in the view that the capital city was there to be pillaged by whichever party that came out victorious.

    The Taliban, in contrast, disregarded Kabul, moving their capital to the much poorer city of Kandahar. Accounts of Afghans who met Taliban officials all reveal a lack of interest in material goods or symbols of social hierarchy. Meetings would be held seated on the floor in a circle, erasing all signs of hierarchy that traditionally has been part of Afghan court etiquette.

    Ironically, such egalitarianism was what the communists had dreamed of in 1978. But in such a deeply religious society, it is not surprising that egalitarianism had to come as part of a religious doctrine. With the Taliban, rural Afghans came to power, ruling over the more sophisticated urban populations. This, too, was a breach of precedence.

    The 1980s mujahideen, the Taliban and the shifting idea of jihad | Nushin Arbabzadah | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Notwithstanding what Pakistan does or does not, one cannot change the meaning of 'strategic depth'.

    It is possibly using a term out of context and justifying the nation's interest in Afghanistan.
     
  13. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    An independent Astan is more dangerous to Pakistan's ravaged integrity than India is. That may be reason to keep Astan destabilized. Strategic depth is just an excuse to justify this.
     
  14. Tronic

    Tronic Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    The Taliban were created from Afghan refugees in Pakistan. However, out of all the major senior commanders of the Mujahideen, none went with the Taliban. The Taliban won, because they were being actively supported by the Pakistani army, while the rest of the Mujahideen were left to fend for themselves.

    And that is the reason I said that you have much to learn about the history of the region. Tell me exactly what is same about the legendary Mujahideen commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud's ideology and the Taliban's ideology? There is a world of a difference!
     
  15. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    When you consider specific personalities or leaders and their modus operandi, then Taliban and Mujahideen may appear different. But from a larger perspective or even from the foot soldier's perspective, its the jihad that is being waged. Some details may change from faction to faction or from leader but the framework is same.

    I am assuming that much of Taliban are erstwhile Mujahideens(not necessarily the leadership or policymakers).

    Its a case of simple evolution of aims and objectives with the change in scenario.
     
  16. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes Received:
    1,762
    Location:
    India
    Read about the Kunduz airlift and it will tell you all one needs to know about who, what, when and why were/are the Taliban.
     
  17. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    4,563
    Location:
    Raipur
    Yes no doubt they all are Jihadis in essence !!
     
    johnee likes this.
  18. Tronic

    Tronic Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Are you trying to say India funded Jihadists in Afghanistan?
     
  19. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Tronic my humble suggestion confine this discussion to PM's
     
  20. Tronic

    Tronic Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    I think the discussion is very much on-topic
     
  21. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    No permanent enemies, only permanent interests...and all that. We supported a faction that we thought could help Astan and India wishes a strong independent Astan.
     

Share This Page