Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Taliban or Al-Qaeda, Who Would You Choose?




So I was reading about how Musharraf is more concerned with security on the Afghan border and rooting out the Taliban rather than hunting down Osama bin Laden on the Newsweeks, and I was reminded of a class reading.

What if you were in Musharraf's position, would you make the same decision?

If I had limited resources and had to choose between put more effort into fighting the Taliban on my borders or hunting bin Laden within my country, I'd go for the former. The Taliban is a greater threat than Al-Qaeda, in my view. The Taliban has something Al-Qaeda does not, a political objective which gains a lot more supporters on the ground than an anarchist organization could ever hope to have, or at least the potential to have more.

Oh, look, I've used a new word from my reading. Anarchism. No, not the smelly drain pipe jeaned punk rock commies that run around middle class areas. The other kind.

"Unlike Hamas or Hizbullah, al-Qaeda has not organized a mass-based political machine, nor has it built a network of social welfare organizations. As a matter of fact, besides its single-minded focus on jihad, al-Qaeda has no program. While Hamas and Hizbullah wage campaigns of national liberation, al-Qaeda identifies with no particular struggle."


and

"Like other anarchist movements, al-Qaeda is reactive. It focuses solely on resisting what it considers to be an intrusive alien order and preserving a culture and lifestyle and the homeland of that culture and lifestyle its members believe to be under attack. Unlike other movements whose discourse it shares, al-Qaeda does not operate as a cog within the international state and economic systems. Rather it wars on those systems."


The Modern Middle East: A History
James L. Gelvin


My radical new idea is to abandon the term "jihadis" when referring to the AQ. I'm going to say anarchists, and maybe add a nice little modifier like "international" or "third world". We'll see.

B T dubbs, RIP Heath Ledger. I loved Brokeback Mountain.

I also feel compelled to say bin Laden is very very bad. It should be obvious, but I think we've all been made to feel a little paranoid about what we say, and I'm not taking any chances. I made the graphic too.

3 comments:

redb said...

I agree with you that a politically organized and salient organization like the Taliban is more threatening to someone in Musharraf's position,

Saeed Uri said...

Al Qaeda as a Anarchist organization?
I don't really know if i agree with that. I think Al Qaeda has a political plan (visit Jihadi websites) and the reason it does not take the path that Hezbollah or Hamas have taken in regards to social help and such is simply because it does not believe in democracy and does not have to worry about receiving votes in the future.
Al Qaeda is truly an international revolutionary organization because it plans to burn the international system down as we know it today and create something new (or recreate something old) from it ashes.
Al Qaeda members, well mainly Bin laden as its leader is very organized and has even taken steps before his mission to destroy the world. If you read his declaration of war against the crusaders and zionist (I think that is what it was called) he follows certain forms of Islamic Sharia in regards to declaring war.

Saeed Uri said...

O and I agree, RIP Heath Ledger, I think the new batman is going to be reallllly good.