Talking to the Taliban

[the_aphid]

Tonight I have been checking out this multimedia series, Talking to the Taliban (http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/talkingtothetaliban/), which earned an Emmy (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/globe-wins-emmy-award-for-talking-to-the-taliban/article1296441/) last night.

The series was built upon individually taped interviews with 42 Taliban foot soldiers, each of whom were asked a set of standardized questions. Long-time Globe and Mail Afghanistan correspondent Graeme Smith equipped a local Afghan researcher with a camera and the lists, and used the responses to build the multimedia series online, as well as the print articles.
The questions

For this project, The Globe and Mail sent a researcher into the dangerous rural districts of Kandahar to meet Taliban fighters.

Here are the questions he asked:

1. How old are you? What is your tribe?

2. What is your profession? (Farmer? Land owner? Mullah?)

3. Are you a fighter for the Taliban? (If no, stop the interview.)

4. Why do you fight against the Karzai government?

5. Has your family been attacked by bombs or foreign soldiers? Is that why you joined the Taliban? Are you taking revenge against the foreign soldiers?

6. Is there anything the Karzai government can give to make you stop fighting? What if the government gives you money, or a job, or a new house, or a promise that you won’t go to jail?

7. Can this fight be finished if the Taliban talks, or negotiates, with the government? If the foreigners go away from Afghanistan, would you accept an Afghan government without Mullah Mohammed Omar?

8. Do you grow poppies? Does anybody in your family grow poppies? Has any government person tried to cut down your poppy fields? What is your opinion about growing poppies: Is this allowed for Muslims or not?

9. How do you get money? Does the Taliban pay you for fighting? Do you get more money if you kill a foreign soldier? Do you get zakat (an Islamic payment similar to tithing) from other people? How much money do you get every month?

10. Do you accept the Durand Line as the real border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you think Quetta and Peshawar belong to Afghanistan? Or do you think the Pashtuns should have their own country – Pashtunistan – separate and different from Afghanistan and Pakistan?

11. We want to ask your opinion about some politicians.

Who is George Bush? What do you think of him?

Who is Hamid Karzai? What do you think of him?

Who is Pervez Musharraf? What do you think of him?

Who is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? What do you think of him?

Who is Stephen Harper? Do you know him? What do you think of him?

Who is Stéphane Dion? Do you know him? What do you think of him?

12. What is NATO? What do you know about this thing?

13. What is the difference between the soldiers from the United States, Canada and Britain (England)?

14. If you are looking at a map and you can see the United States in the middle, where is Canada? On the left side? The right side? The top? Or the bottom?

15. Some Canadian soldiers speak French and some speak English – just like some Afghans speak Pashto and some Afghans speak Dari. The Afghans who speak Pashto usually come from the southern part of Afghanistan. What part of Canada do the French people come from? North? South? East? West?

16. In the last month (August, 2007), French Canadian soldiers came to Kandahar to fight against the Taliban. Before that, the English Canadian soldiers were here. Who do you think are the stronger fighters, the French Canadians or the English Canadians?

17. The Taliban have been fighting against Canadian soldiers in Kandahar for more than one year (as of August, 2007). What do you know about these Canadians? Can you tell me something about the country where they come from? Is it a big country? Small country? Rich or poor? Hot or cold? What kind of food do Canadians eat? How do they behave with their women? Are there any Muslims in Canada?

18. Some countries are enemies of the Taliban; some countries are friends. What countries are good? Which ones are friendly to Afghanistan?

19. What do you think about suicide bombers? Who are these people? Are they Pashtuns? Or foreigners? Is suicide bombing allowed in Islam?

20. Hundreds of foreign soldiers have died in this jihad. What do you think – how many must be killed before they leave? How many years until they leave, do you think?
All I can say right now is that it is extremely insightful and illuminating.

[lolipop]

These questions would really shed some light on the truth. And isn't truth what everyone should seek for? Many might be outraged by the very fact that they talked with the Taliban. I have to admit, when I saw the title of this discussion, my first thought was how the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists. I'm sure that there would be more severe reactions to a title such as this.

Still, by actually talking to members of the Taliban, we would be able to see what is truly going on and why the Taliban fight. By finding out why they fight, we could find out how to solve the major problems by simple means, without force. Though I'm sure that it is more complicated than I wish it would be, I think that we could stand to learn something from this.

[Thomas Knierim]

The Taliban stand for everything we detest. Ignorance, narrow-mindedness, cruelty, poverty, despair and fanaticism. It's like looking at the dark side of humanity, and since we are human, the dark side of ourselves.

Cheers, Thomas

[the_aphid]

After watching the first half-dozen interviews, and hearing nearly identical responses to the questions, I couldn't help but wonder how Canadian/American soldiers would respond if asked 20 questions concerning the regions of the Middle East and why they joined the military. I believe a number of the responses would similarly be "I don't know about this."

I mean, I was surprised by video 7 I think, when one of these Taliban soldiers actually knew that Canada was north of the US.

[lolipop]

The Taliban stand for everything we detest. Ignorance, narrow-mindedness, cruelty, poverty, despair and fanaticism.

I agree that the idea that the Taliban stand for is not good, but the people themselves might have only joined for the same reason some of our own men join the military. "It's good pay", "My parents made me", and "I dunno" would be some of the answers. Just because you join the military doesn't necessarily mean that you join the cause.

I gues you could take the Christian event "See You At the Pole", where students gather around the flagpole at their school and pray for things. I go their to pray and that's it. Others might go there just to get the doughnuts, and others might go their because they're expected to do so. Another reason is to make themselves feel important and righteous because they did something their friends didn't. They're not good reasons, but they are reasons that have gathered them in one place, nonetheless. Now I have yet to see these videos, so I'm not sure that their answers would exactly support this, but based on the human nature, I'm pretty sure.

It's like looking at the dark side of humanity, and since we are human, the dark side of ourselves.

I agree with this, but in relation to your post, it seemed to me that you were saying that because it is dark, we should not look at it. Based on what I interpreted, I would have to say that there's more to it. If we look at the weaknesses of humanity, which can often be the dark side as well, we can correct those weaknesses so that they may turn into strengths. Not that the weaknesses will be accepted and then ignored, but we will stop those weaknesses so that they will no longer exist and are replaced with strengths. Should that not be our goal?

Oh, if my interpretation was not what you were getting at, I'd really like to know, so that I may better understand what you meant. :)

[Trevor]

These questions would really shed some light on the truth. And isn't truth what everyone should seek for? Many might be outraged by the very fact that they talked with the Taliban. I have to admit, when I saw the title of this discussion, my first thought was how the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists. I'm sure that there would be more severe reactions to a title such as this.

Still, by actually talking to members of the Taliban, we would be able to see what is truly going on and why the Taliban fight. By finding out why they fight, we could find out how to solve the major problems by simple means, without force. Though I'm sure that it is more complicated than I wish it would be, I think that we could stand to learn something from this.

Is it truth, or survival, that everyone is looking for?
My father is a Canadian who enlisted in the United States of America's Marines during the Vietnamn War.
If he hadn't of decided to come back to Canada then I wouldn't be here. Personally, I'm glad that he did.
He went to enlist because he had American uncles who were in the U.S. Marines, and felt that he needed to 'prove something'.
I suppose that there are many similar stories among the Taliban, including: The U.S. government formed us to fight against the U.S.S.R.
Isn't that the same as my dad? The U.S. trying to 'prove something'?

[Michael]

While this is about Talking to the Taliban it is also in essence about talking to the enemy or those we regard as 'other' in any context. The simplest example is a husband and wife have a row. Both think they are right. Neither will speak to the other. What do you think is the probable outcome of the situation?

[lolipop]

Is it truth, or survival, that everyone is looking for?

What I think is that it's a combination of both. If by attaining the truth we are able to survive, then truth would be the one that everyone searches for. However, I don't believe that one should hide the truth just to survive. My belief is that one should put of the carnal, animalistic state. Most often, by placing truth before all others, you can survive.

I know that in certain places where this wasn't true. Japan during the Edo Period believed in saving face, which meant telling a lie in order to survive. But we aren't in the Edo Period anymore. We are in the present where it's okay, even deplorable, to tell the truth, even if it means that you are admiting to some crime. Many people have been able to cut deals with the law by telling the truth.

Isn't that the same as my dad? The U.S. trying to 'prove something'?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what is being said. Do you think you could explain a little bit further so I might be able to answer the question? Thank you.:)

The simplest example is a husband and wife have a row. Both think they are right. Neither will speak to the other. What do you think is the probable outcome of the situation?

I would say that if they want to solve the problem, but are unwilling to compromise, then a third party might need to step in. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure if there is one specific country that can be the third party, since everyone is taking sides. But rather than have one specific country, maybe we just need one person, like those that made the documentary, to be the third party.

Sure, it means that either side will have to look at each other's answers from a distance, but that is better than nothing. Without communication, everything can fall apart. It's up to the individuals, rather than the country as a whole, to make the difference that could benefit the world.

[Thomas Knierim]

I agree that the idea that the Taliban stand for is not good, but the people themselves might have only joined for the same reason some of our own men join the military. "It's good pay", "My parents made me", and "I dunno" would be some of the answers. Just because you join the military doesn't necessarily mean that you join the cause.

Ignorance and negligence aren't really good excuses. If someone has joined the military or the Taliban because he "dunno", then I pity that person, but it does not really protect him from the negative consequences. It is reasonable to expect that people take responsibility for their decisions. If someone decides to join the Taliban later ends up dead on some Afghan desert field, then that is simply cause and action. Few would be surprised or feel sympathy.

I agree with this, but in relation to your post, it seemed to me that you were saying that because it is dark, we should not look at it.

On the contrary. It can be very educating, because it gives us some insight into how people slip into evil behaviour. One should look closely and pay attention. It can help us to avoid making similar mistakes. I mean, hardly anyone here is likely to join the Taliban, but everybody faces challenges and conflicts of some kind.

It is important to resist feelings of anger and violence. "Let's bomb the !@# out of them" is not a solution, but it makes the problem worse. The Taliban must be fought, no doubt about it, but bombs and guns are not going to accomplish the job. The Karzai government is a boon to Afghanistan, but we should not expect too much. Once a country has reached the level of anarchy and destruction like Afghanistan in 2003, it is really difficult to get things back to normal.

Cheers, Thomas

[abaris]

Thomas Knierim

The Taliban must be fought, no doubt about it.


Is that so? Would you bother to explain why uniformed shitheads from Germany, England, the US or Canada have the right to decide which Afghan village to Bomb and which to spare?

[Michael]

The Taliban must be fought, no doubt about it, but bombs and guns are not going to accomplish the job.

Cheers, Thomas

So many things must be fought for one reason or another. It is quite an exhausting occupation. All those external 'wrongs' which will be righted when we oppose. Until such time as we are the 'perfect warrior' we have no authority to oppose.

If we approach with an oppositional mindset all that can be achieved is increased hostility. Opposing from ignorance leads only to destruction whether we win or lose.

[kris]

On the contrary. It can be very educating, because it gives us some insight into how people slip into evil behaviour. One should look closely and pay attention. It can help us to avoid making similar mistakes.
So what is your insight into how people slip into evil behavior, as learnt by looking at Taliban?

I think the larger issue is not that some people like evil behavior, but rather that there is no agreement in the world about what evil is. From what I know of Taliban, their zeal for "virtue" is what drives their behavior, which some of us find to be evil.

[brother alan]

IThe Taliban must be fought, no doubt about it, but bombs and guns are not going to accomplish the job.
A muddy pool becomes clear not by my intervention, but by my non-intervention, which may cost me quite a struggle. Is this something like the sense in which you mean, "must be fought"?

[abaris]

brother alan

A muddy pool becomes clear not by my intervention, but by my non-intervention, which may cost me quite a struggle. Is this something like the sense in which you mean, "must be fought"?


At last! here is something I can fully agree with you brother alan. Some fights are better left un-fought.

[lolipop]

The Taliban must be fought, no doubt about it, but bombs and guns are not going to accomplish the job.

That's a very interesting concept. It does beg the question, however, of how to fight without bombs and guns. Hmm...:unsure:

[dfift]

On the contrary. It can be very educating, because it gives us some insight into how people slip into evil behaviour

But what Is evil behaviour? We have a completely different perpective to the taliban. They consider us to be no less evil than themselves. Education is the only thing that gives us what we consider to be our refined sense of good and evil.

[Ron-the-Elder]

The Taliban stand for everything we detest. Ignorance, narrow-mindedness, cruelty, poverty, despair and fanaticism. It's like looking at the dark side of humanity, and since we are human, the dark side of ourselves.

Cheers, Thomas

"What do you mean WE, White Man?"-------was Tonto's response to The Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by attacking American Indians, now called by The P.C. : Native Americans. ( According to a joke popular about twenty years ago.)

What I have always found interesting regarding the fighters in Afghanistan/Pakistan regions is that they are willing to change sides as soon as they realize that their (current) comrades are losing and that they might get killed as a result. We saw this during the strike on The Taliban by the so-called Alliance Fighters being paid by Allies (U.S., England, Austrailia...) directly after 9-11-2001.

I am not so sure that western-world morals are so much different than The Talibans. Greed and power-seeking seems to be a world-wide practice. Killing in the name of religion seems to be an excuse used by all of The Abrahemic Religions. I have even seen killing by Buddhists in the name of self-defense ----- monks to boot!

Sad.

[schrodinger]

"What do you mean WE, White Man?"-------was Tonto's response to The Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by attacking American Indians, now called by The P.C. : Native Americans. ( According to a joke popular about twenty years ago.)

What I have always found interesting regarding the fighters in Afghanistan/Pakistan regions is that they are willing to change sides as soon as they realize that their (current) comrades are losing and that they might get killed as a result. We saw this during the strike on The Taliban by the so-called Alliance Fighters being paid by Allies (U.S., England, Austrailia...) directly after 9-11-2001.

I am not so sure that western-world morals are so much different than The Talibans. Greed and power-seeking seems to be a world-wide practice. Killing in the name of religion seems to be an excuse used by all of The Abrahemic Religions. I have even seen killing by Buddhists in the name of self-defense ----- monks to boot!

Sad.


You don't know what you are talking about Ron. Do you suppose a suicide bomber is afraid of getting killed?

[Ron-the-Elder]

You don't know what you are talking about Ron. Do you suppose a suicide bomber is afraid of getting killed?

One of us doesn't know what they are talking about.

"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat. "

Resource: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2359652/posts

Suggest you also read the historical accounts of the first invasion of Afghanistan and the activities of The Northern Alliance and Mujahadeen.

resource: http://books.google.com/books?id=bv4hzxpo424C&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=Historical+Accounts+of+The+Afghanistan+Northern +Alliance&source=bl&ots=bC-YrBlA8F&sig=0-K1kmVCAisaDtMQ-s2MdkkFg5I&hl=en&ei=wrndSvPCNYXK8Qaq9Jhh&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

These traditions of readily changing sides have nothing to do with suicide bombing, introduced by The Persians of Iran.


resource: http://www.google.com/search?q=History+of+Iranian+tactic+of+Suicide+Bomb ing&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=W7vdSrqWG8zO8QaRy8Vf&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CCsQ5wIwCg


History and justification of suicide bombings in Middle East:

http://www.meforum.org/2478/suicide-bombing-as-worship

[kris]

"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat. "

......

These traditions of readily changing sides have nothing to do with suicide bombing, introduced by The Persians of Iran.


Does it really matter who introduced suicide bombing? Afghans are practising it quite well now!

[Trevor]

Hi lolipop. Sorry that I didn't reply earlier. I just saw this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor
"Isn't that the same as my dad? The U.S. trying to 'prove something'?"

Then you replied: "I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what is being said. Do you think you could explain a little bit further so I might be able to answer the question? Thank you."

I reread what I posted and I see now that my dad joining the Marines to prove something to his family isn't exactly the same as what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan.
I meant that the U.S., and their allies, are trying to 'prove something' to the Taliban and the rest of the world, and maybe even the U.S. to itself, that it's their way or the highway.
Isn't all of this talk of democratizing a country just a smokescreen?
They are mainly there to build an oil pipeline to India, aren't they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
It's all about money.

[schrodinger]

Isn't all of this talk of democratizing a country just a smokescreen?
They are mainly there to build an oil pipeline to India, aren't they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
It's all about money.

Certainly oil is a factor in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US government is not a charitable organization with nothing but altruistice intentions. However, it is hoped that some good does ultimatelt come from introducing at least the concept of democracy to states where such has never existed. I think most people realize that full democratization according to western standards is not prcatical nor even desirable at this time.
As

[schrodinger]

Isn't all of this talk of democratizing a country just a smokescreen?
They are mainly there to build an oil pipeline to India, aren't they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
It's all about money.

Certainly oil is a factor in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US government is not a charitable organization with nothing but altruistic intentions. However, it is hoped that some good does ultimately come from introducing at least the concept of democracy to states where such has never existed. I think most people realize that full democratization according to western standards is not prcatical nor even desirable at this time.
As I side-note, I was in Iraq as part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" though not as a combatant. The joke going around at the time was that the name should be changed to "Operation Iraqi Liberty", or OIL for short!:)

[sonrisa]

yup, it's about the oil. We really need to develop alternative sources of fuel & manufacture of plastic (around 85% of oil is used for- not gas- but making plastic!) I'm with Abaris on this one- the former occupant of his Granddad's farm. aka Alexander the Great, knew to get the hell out of Afghanistan. Our leaders should do the same-asap

[Kaosu]

I think the resignation letter of Matthew Hoh, the former US Marine Corps Captain and the senior civilian representative of the US government in Zabul Province, sheds some much needed light on the war in Afghanistan.

You can read the full text of the letter here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21683575/Matthew-Hoh-first-US-official-to-resign-over-Afghan-War

It is a very moving, articulate, and well-informed piece of writing. It highlights the complete ineffectiveness of US policy in the region and the terrible human cost of the ongoing conflict.

Overall, I think there are a lot of parallels with Vietnam. As in the South Vietnam, the US is propping up an extremely corrupt and extremely unpopular regime.*

And as in Vietnam, neither participant in the conflict really understands each other. In both Vietnam and Afghanistan, the US tends to portray this as an ideological battle --- in 'Nam, it was Communism against Liberal Democracy; in Afghanistan it is radical Islamism against Liberal Democracy.

The problem with this view, however, is that this is not at all how the insurgency in Vietnam saw things or how the insurgency in Afghanistan sees things. In both cases, the native populations understood the conflict as being a war of national liberation against the latest in a long series of foreign aggressors. The Vietnamese perspective was that they had fought against the French, the Japanese, then the French again --- and now here were the Americans, another occupying power trying to dictate how they should run their country. The American fear was that a Communist Vietnam would ally with a Communist China, but from the natives' perspective, this was absurd; Vietnam had been a virtual vassal state of China before the French colonization. Why would they want to subject themselves to that again when they were fighting so hard to secure some measure of autonomy?

The situation in Afghanistan is similar. The Pashtun resistance see the presence of foreign troops as being the latest in a series of attempts to conquer and control their land, extending at least far back as the British and Russians in the 19th century and continuing up to the Soviet occupation. It is occupation which fuels insurgency here, and as Hoh points out "the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."

There's also the internal conflicts between the urban vs rural communities, not to mention the ethnic strife --- it is not much talked about, but the conflict between the "Northern Alliance"** and the Taliban was very much drawn along ethnic lines, with the Alliance encompassing Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks and others and the Taliban being largely Pashtun.

Incidentally, the real reasons why the US in Afghanistan have been openly declared and published for over a decade now. The guiding policy behind the US invasion of Afghanistan (and arguably Iraq as well) is thoroughly outlined in a book by geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski entitled "The Grand Chessboard". This has been the unofficial playbook for post-Cold War US foreign policy since the Clinton years, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to see the real reasons behind our involvement in Afghanistan. Yes, oil is a major motivating factor, but it's far from being the only or even the most important consideration. Central Asia has always been the pivot for empires bent on world domination, long before oil was even a consideration.

Of course, no empire in history has ever been able to hold down Central Asia, and I rather suspect that the American Empire will fail just as the others have.


----------
* - It's not even clear that the Karzai government is much better than the Taliban --- aside from the rampant corruption and ties to the drug trade, has anyone forgotten the recent law, signed and approved by Karzai, which legalizes rape?

** - Interesting little tidbit: the name "Northern Alliance" is a construct of the Western media. The real name of the alliance is the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan". I suspect that the name was changed in the Western media because the coalition forces have from the beginning seen this as an ideological conflict, and did not want to muddy the lines of demarcation between "us" and "them", "them" being a backwards and Islamic "other". The reality is a very complex tribal conflict that has nothing to do with Western projections of ideology.

[Dan]

I'm not sure what the point of some of those questions are. What do you expect to learn from the answers to:

14. If you are looking at a map and you can see the United States in the middle, where is Canada? On the left side? The right side? The top? Or the bottom?

15. Some Canadian soldiers speak French and some speak English – just like some Afghans speak Pashto and some Afghans speak Dari. The Afghans who speak Pashto usually come from the southern part of Afghanistan. What part of Canada do the French people come from? North? South? East? West?

As the Afghans are fighting people in their own country, does it really matter how much they know of Canadian geography or society?

I'd love to see Afghans in the States asking Americans these same questions.

Who is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? What do you think of him?

How do you get money? Does the American state pay you for fighting? Do you get more money if you kill a foreigner? Do you benefit from taxes (a capitalist payment similar to tithing) from other people? How much money do you get every month?

Why do you fight against the Afghan people?