Solving Afghanistan?

[roadrunner]

Chechnya was also more of a 'separatist' conflict vs an 'occupation of a sovereign nation', so the mindset (the population having already existed as part of Russia/Soviet Union could not be said to be irrevocably opposed to the idea of continued existence as part of Russia) and dynamics are different, and still , as you said, it took an extremely brutal campaign over a very long time before Russia could declare 'victory'.

Was Chechnya forcibly incorporated into the Imperial Russian Empire?

If it was forcibly incorporated, it would be occupation.

I have mixed views on Chechnya, and both sides are doing wrong, but the source of the problem is imperialism.

 

[Tang0]

And let me try and add to the "nuanced argument" bit.
Here are two peer reviewed , published studies in journals. Both are freely accessible. There are many more like them, but they need subscriptions to foreign policy journals.

The first one claims that terrorists are motivated more by action of other terrorists around them than by reasoning. Everyone is angry, but no one moves until some first person does. So US did not start the terrorists, someone else did. And once they have started, US pulling out won't help.
SSRN-Inhibiting Imitative Terrorism Through Memetic Engineering by Richard Pech

The second one shows that terrorists are not always motivated exactly as their leaders are. A terrorist may kill himself for reasons that are personal (anger against society etc.), but he can be motivated by a leader who has different interests.

SSRN-What Directs a Terrorist? by Karen Pittel, Dirk Rübbelke

So a dying terrorist may give one reason for dying (anti-US), while Mehsud may have a different reason. Excellent example of this is Kasab in Mumbai - he apparently claims no reason except that he was asked to and that he wanted the money.

So thinking that terrorists are attacking Pakistan because they hate US in Afghanistan or that they want Shariah may not be always right. They first get angry and then find reasons for being angry. If you take away one reason, they will find another.

Young males have always been looking for a way to kill people and get away with it. The idividual motivations for terrorism are perhaps not particularly informative or important.

There is perhaps something to the "me too" argument. I can certainly see that in the string of school shootings in the US since the 90's. A form of previously unheard of violence happens once, gets heavily publicized, and quickly becomes something of an bi-annual occurrence. Since then things have trickeled off as far as the frequency of school shootings, they are no longer exciting or shocking. Old hat.

Terrorism works in a diffrent way. It starts off for Political reasons, then quickly turns into a romantic way to commit violence and feel justified, and after a while, people actually get invested. As in, there are entrenched habits and support structures that have to be systematically disabled to end it.

If you can eliminate the reasons for the existence of a terrorist organization, I agree the angry men with guns do not go away. However, they need to re-invent themselves or they become just more angry men with firearms who will kill each other off. Without consistent leadership, things fracture and infighting begins.

Look at the GIA and Algerian civil war. As soon as the security apparatus started to fail the Islamist groups split apart and started attacking each other.

The bad news is that it took 11 years to sort itself out, and tens of thousands of civilians died before it did...

Obviously not a model to base your counter insurgency strategy on.

 

[wtf]

Young males have always been looking for a way to kill people and get away with it. The individual motivations for terrorism are perhaps not particularly informative or important.

That is exactly what I was trying to say. Agnostic Muslim believes that all most terrorists are killing Pakistani's because their houses/villages have been bombed by the US. Hence his conclusion that US pulling back from Afghanistan will solve Pakistan's problem. What I was trying to say is that the groups (not necessarily individuals) are motivated by a wish to rule over Afghanistan and Pakistan and to impose their will and interpretation of religion on these states. If US pulls out, they (the leadership) will find faults with Shias, Sufis, Pakistan-US relationships etc. etc. and continue their attacks using people who are angry and easily motivated. If my arguments are correct, giving them what they ask for does not make them lay down their arms, but makes them greedier.

 

[roadrunner]

That is exactly what I was trying to say. Agnostic Muslim believes that all most terrorists are killing Pakistani's because their houses/villages have been bombed by the US. Hence his conclusion that US pulling back from Afghanistan will solve Pakistan's problem. What I was trying to say is that the groups (not necessarily individuals) are motivated by a wish to rule over Afghanistan and Pakistan and to impose their will and interpretation of religion on these states. If US pulls out, they (the leadership) will find faults with Shias, Sufis, Pakistan-US relationships etc. etc. and continue their attacks using people who are angry and easily motivated. If my arguments are correct, giving them what they ask for does not make them lay down their arms, but makes them greedier.

He's quite right in what he's saying.

What you are saying refers to a hardcore group of foreign fighters that would like to spread their ideology to rule Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US presence in Afghanistan, the drone strikes in Pakistan help these radical fighters to find a common cause with the US bombed village or neighbourhood, which in turn is fueling the spread of their twisted ideology.

If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, extremism cannot take root in Pakistan, and these terrorist attacks will stop. The continued US presence in Afghanistan is all part of the Great Game, and it does fuel this radical ideology, in the same way as it fueled the popularity of the MMA in 2002. That is a fact.

 

[DarkStar]

Was Chechnya forcibly incorporated into the Imperial Russian Empire?

If it was forcibly incorporated, it would be occupation.

I have mixed views on Chechnya, and both sides are doing wrong, but the source of the problem is imperialism.

We must remember, that the Chechens have a history of war with the Russians, from the time of the famous IMam Shamyl of the mid 19th century. It was only after Imam Shamyl los tthe war, that the Russian hegemony over the Caucusus was established.

The Chechens were brutally punished by Stalin, and lost 20-50 percent of their population, when they were forcibly deported from their homelands, and only allowed to come back after decades.

The Chechens had always been an industrious, and hard working people, and were heavily represented in the armed forces, especially the Soviet Air force, which also recruited and trained in Chechnya.

The first spark was the assasination of the famous Russian leader of the opposition, Hizbulatov (during Yeltsin's era, if I remember). He was a heavy duty politician, who would have ousted Yetlsin, and was set to become the next Russian President. He was obviously a muslim, although I'm not sure if he was chechen.

Dzhokar Dudayev, himself an ex-major general in the Air force, was the real leader of the seperatists, who won the elections and delared Chechnya as an Independant state. He was a brilliant military strategist, and while he was alive, the Russians stood no chance. The Russians were soundly defeated, and their army left Chechnya, and it remained an Independant state for a couple of years, if not in name.

It was only after he was killed by a missile, that was tracking his satellite telephone signal, that the Russians decided to wrest the initiative back, and poured troops into Chechnya again. It was speculated at the time, that the Americans helped kill Dudayev using their technology.

After Dudayev's death, the Chechen leadership reverted to younger people like salman rudayev and shamil basyev, and a hardcore fundamentalist outlook bred by the jihad began to take shape. Aslan maskhadov was a liberal, but his authority not absolute.


ps. It's quite funny, but no search engine is giving any information about Hiabulatov any more? its as if the word doesn't exist anymore, guess somebody's blocked it, because i remember googling hizbulatov a couple of years ago...hmm.

 

[wtf]

The US presence in Afghanistan, the drone strikes in Pakistan help these radical fighters to find a common cause with the US bombed village or neighbourhood, which in turn is fueling the spread of their twisted ideology.

On one side I have two articles that say that terrorists are copycats and are motivated by a variety of things different from what their leadership wants. On the other side I have your claim that US bombing in Afghanistan causes terrorism in Pakistan.

It also supports my common sense observation that terrorists are irrational (anyone who dies to kill his neighbours has to be by definition irrational). There is no point in negotiating with irrationals.

Could you point me to either ot these

• A statement by TTP which says they'll lay down arms once US gets out of Afghanistan
• A statement by a terrorist which says "we hate US in Afghanistan but we can't fight there, so we are fighting in Pakistan"
• A study (or even an example) where ending of a war in a neighbouring country caused cessation of terrorism in a neighbour

So far the best I have is Pakistan’s New Generation of Terrorists - Council on Foreign Relations
which says that TTP is copying Afghan Taliban, but are distinct. They are nevertheless copying ideology from Afghan Taliban and trying to copy it in Pakistan.

Jane's say that their first target is (was) tribal leaders and so called Pakistani-anti-Islamists and locally deployed government forces.
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (Pakistan) - Jane's World Insurgency and Terrorism

 

[roadrunner]

On one side I have two articles that say that terrorists are copycats and are motivated by a variety of things different from what their leadership wants. On the other side I have your claim that US bombing in Afghanistan causes terrorism in Pakistan.

It also supports my common sense observation that terrorists are irrational (anyone who dies to kill his neighbours has to be by definition irrational). There is no point in negotiating with irrationals.

Could you point me to either ot these

• A statement by TTP which says they'll lay down arms once US gets out of Afghanistan
• A statement by a terrorist which says "we hate US in Afghanistan but we can't fight there, so we are fighting in Pakistan"
• A study (or even an example) where ending of a war in a neighbouring country caused cessation of terrorism in a neighbour

So far the best I have is Pakistan’s New Generation of Terrorists - Council on Foreign Relations
which says that TTP is copying Afghan Taliban, but are distinct. They are nevertheless copying ideology from Afghan Taliban and trying to copy it in Pakistan.

Jane's say that their first target is (was) tribal leaders and so called Pakistani-anti-Islamists and locally deployed government forces.
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (Pakistan) - Jane's World Insurgency and Terrorism

I'll try and simplify.

The US bomb people, people upset, want help, noone give, people desperate, want survive, man with radical religion say he help them, people learn man ideology, ideology spread.

Understandable?

 

[wtf]

ps. It's quite funny, but no search engine is giving any information about Hiabulatov any more? its as if the word doesn't exist anymore, guess somebody's blocked it, because i remember googling hizbulatov a couple of years ago...hmm.

Did you mean Khasbulatov ? He was Chechen and opposition leader and was arrested, but not killed.
Ruslan Khasbulatov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is exactly what I was trying to say. Agnostic Muslim believes that all most terrorists are killing Pakistani's because their houses/villages have been bombed by the US. Hence his conclusion that US pulling back from Afghanistan will solve Pakistan's problem. What I was trying to say is that the groups (not necessarily individuals) are motivated by a wish to rule over Afghanistan and Pakistan and to impose their will and interpretation of religion on these states. If US pulls out, they (the leadership) will find faults with Shias, Sufis, Pakistan-US relationships etc. etc. and continue their attacks using people who are angry and easily motivated. If my arguments are correct, giving them what they ask for does not make them lay down their arms, but makes them greedier.

This is what I meant by reading the posts in context.

At no point have I said that the US pulling out of Afghanistan would automatically solve Pakistan's problems - that was RR's argument, that the Afghan's should be allowed to fight it out and evolve themselves.

In fact I pointed out to him that such a process would inevitably draw Pakistan (and therefore other countries in the region) in, and impose huge costs on Pakistan, if the last civil war is anything to go by.

You are mixing two different trains of thought here - My hypothetical argument for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan was a response to Muse's argument of 'leave Pakistan alone to sort out its mess'.

I countered that 'leave Pakistan alone' held no meaning so long as the NATO occupation continued in Afghanistan, since the occupation would influence the environment and drive dynamics within Pakistan, thereby defeating the premise of 'leave Pakistan alone'.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are not entirely similar. Pakistan is facing an ideological insurgency that seeks to overthrow the traditional democratic and moderate order in favor of Taliban Shariah. Pakistan did enter into a flawed Swat peace deal from a position of weakness, and that should not have happened, but it did due to certain constraints. The deal is flawed and personally I believe it is a matter of time before it collapses.

Afghanistan is facing an insurgency that is self-admittedly both ideological and geared towards fighting off an occupation. The latter means that the US presence and continued hostilities drive the insurgency and violence alone will not quell it. The point about 'not giving in at the barrel of a gun' works both ways - the insurgents make the same argument about giving in to an occupation force.

The arguments made on this thread by Blain are not so much about the US just giving in to the Taliban and letting them ride roughshod over Afghanistan, but of the US attempting broad based engagement with the demographic group that the Taliban draw their support from, the Pashtun, increasing their political involvement and genuine representation in the GoA, strengthening the GoA, and setting the stage for withdrawal, rather than trying to fight the Taliban into submission in an open ended engagement.

I would encourage you to read Blain's posts again, because what you postulated above is nowhere close to what he has argued, nor is it representative of my opinion.

 

[wtf]

I'll try and simplify.

The US bomb people, people upset, want help, noone give, people desperate, want survive, man with radical religion say he help them, people learn man ideology, ideology spread.

Understandable?

So far, we are talking similar things.

Next step. US goes away, people still upset about bad economy/Shia/Sunni/tribes/lack of law, people have guns, religious man says he help them, people learn ideology and turn on the next supposed enemy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

WTF:

I really think you have to get out of the 'terrorist' mindset to understand the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

No doubt some of the Taliban factions are cooperating with Al Qaeda, but 'terrorism' for the sake of blowing up people is not what is driving the insurgency. The US overthrew one faction in a civil war in favor of another, and now has a military presence in Afghanistan. The overthrown faction considers the overthrow of the 'occupiers' and a return to power its right and a just cause.

You have to get beyond the canard of 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' to start resolving Afghanistan.

 

[DarkStar]

Did you mean Khasbulatov ? He was Chechen and opposition leader and was arrested, but not killed.
Ruslan Khasbulatov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you might be right. I don't know why it was in my head that he had been killed, rather than arrested.

Anyway, this Hasbulatov/Khasbulatov was a leader of the anti Yeltsin soviet attempted coupe, i believe. After Hasbulatov was banished from politics, the Chechens having lost Ingushetia to the Russians, declared complete INdependance.

Thanks for correcting me.

 

[DarkStar]

WTF:

I really think you have to get out of the 'terrorist' mindset to understand the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

No doubt some of the Taliban factions are cooperating with Al Qaeda, but 'terrorism' for the sake of blowing up people is not what is driving the insurgency. The US overthrew one faction in a civil war in favor of another, and now has a military presence in Afghanistan. The overthrown faction considers the overthrow of the 'occupiers' and a return to power its right and a just cause.

You have to get beyond the canard of 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' to start resolving Afghanistan.

It must be remembered, that the people now in the AFghan govt, and parliament, were the same ones that had actually first allied with AQ and OBL, and had invited him to stay in Jalalabad, before the Taliban even came into prominence. When OBL was forced by the US to leave Sudan (why the hell they did that, is beyond me), the former MUj. in Jalalabad allowed him to set up camp there, and he was sitting there when the Taliban finally 'captured' Jalalabad.

to WTF -

if you think that those former Muj. are against AQ and OBL, then you are sadly mistaken, and seem a tad naive.

 

[roadrunner]

So far, we are talking similar things.

Next step. US goes away, people still upset about bad economy/Shia/Sunni/tribes/lack of law, people have guns, religious man says he help them, people learn ideology and turn on the next supposed enemy.

why would that happen? it didn't happen last time did it? The Taliban had brought 90% of Afghanistan under its control. Banditry was outlawed. Not that I'm suggesting Taliban should be propogated. But Afghanistan needs to evolve. It will look like a mess for a while, perhaps a decade. When peace is restored, and some laws are in place, then things can evolve. The evolution of society can occur very quickly, but it must be an all-Afghani evolution, with no foreign powers or person involved.

But if government's are propped up representative of the minorities, they'll end up the same fate as Najibullah hanging from the lampost, a cycle of revenge will continue. Let it evolve. Afghanistan is majority Pashtun, I could not imagine an American government which was controlled by African Americans that excluded European people.

 

[DarkStar]

Roadrunner...the Taliban of 96 under Mullah Umar, wiill not be the Taliban of 09 under Mullah Umar...too many things have changed, strategies, tactics, allegiances...no need to save face anymore...then we were their meherbaan...now, we hold no such currency with them.

Do not expect the next Mullah Umar Emirate to be so kind to Pkistan...If they get in power in Kabul (even with a peace deal with the US and Karzai under a power sharing agreement) then they will support insurgency in Pakistna by the mercenery TTP...I'm sure of that.