Sycophantism and Waziristan Part III

Fresh on the heels of Robert Gates' statement that the US was ready to send troops into Waziristan, Dr. Ahmed talks about the dangers of favoring a military option in Waziristan, especially in light of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan in Part III of his interview with The Globalist.

"I would say that the United States should be very cautious — and should send its finest diplomats to have good relations with the tribal chiefs, through jirgas. They should meet them, show them respect, listen to them.


The United States needs to realize that it cannot make the mistake, whatever it does, of sending in troops, because that will do two things: It will consolidate all the tribes against the United States — and also push even those wavering into the local Taliban camp. The local Taliban are already dominating the tribal areas — and now, they are spilling into the settled districts of Pakistan.


Action in the tribal areas will also inflame all of Pakistan. Even those who are seen to be pro-American, like President Musharraf, have warned against any U.S. military action in Pakistan."

Sycophantism and Waziristan "Part Deux"

Soon to come on this blog, more discussion of religion and destruction as I am writing a short paper about it this week. It should be fun. In the meantime, enjoy more discussion of my awesome professor.

Here's a quote from Dr. Ahmed's interview with The Globalist Part II where he answers a question about Waziristan and modernity. The answer I think is applicable to many societies who have said they have no wish to modernize.

"However the people of Waziristan living in Karachi are as modern as you and me. But back home in their own region, they preserve their own custom and tradition. It is a conscious choice—and has nothing to do with “barbarians living in caves.” They opted for preserving their identity and a culture. They said this preserves our freedom. That’s what they treasured above all. They said, “We have seen what you have done to Pakistan, what modernization means to Pakistan — corrupt police, corrupt revenue officials, corrupt politicians.’ So they said, ‘We have seen all this. What are you going to give us that is different? Why do you want to modernize us? Leave us alone.’"

Also described in the article is how the war on terror has pushed different governments into becoming military states leaving huge vacuums of power open to radicals like the Taliban to step in and "restore" a sense of law and order that is governed by at the very least civilians, if not with the complete blessings of the entire society.

Dr. Ahmed goes on to say that there is indeed a way to bring stability back to Waziristan, but its a tricky one that involves engaging a tribal system rather than abolishing it:

"...The Americans, who seem to be on the war path if newspaper reports are to be taken seriously, have no idea of this type of [tribal] administration. It is a colonial administration and Americans are not a very colonial people. The Americans are used to a mayor who is elected for a fixed period.

In Waziristan, when I was the political agent, I was accountable to no one, except for my own reputation. That is not a very acceptable concept in the West. A 21st century solution has therefore to be found which is informed by the past in which diplomacy and a shrewd understanding of the nature of tribal society often averted death and destruction while meeting the objective at hand."

Sycophantism and Waziristan

Yes it is time I start blabbering on about my awesome professor again.

Dr. Ahmed, the professor I am privileged to work for along with some other fantastic research assistants, has just been featured in an article for The Globalist talking about US covert action in Waziristan, relating a bit to yesterday's post about Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Waziristan is a province in NW Pakistan and is the favorite location for presumed bin Laden hide outs it appears. According to the BBC, the Pakistani government has been aggressively pursuing Al Qaeda and Taliban activists and looking for tribal allies to push Al Qaeda and the Taliban out.

In the past, Waziristan cooperated with the Americans in pushing the Soviets out of the region, and had a favorable view of Americans. But after the war was won, and the Americans had left, something began to change. Dr. Ahmed describes:

"Initially, Americans had a good reputation. After all, it was because of the Americans, especially the CIA, that the Afghans won the war in Afghanistan. The CIA, working with the Pakistani intelligence, was able to provide weapons to the Afghans and especially the “Stingers” to shoot down the Soviet helicopters. Afghans remember that Ronald Reagan had called them ‘freedom fighters.’

But not long afterwards, Afghans looked at their land and said, ‘My god, look at the devastation, we are destroyed, our homes are destroyed. One-fourth of our people have lost a limb or a leg because of the Soviet’s brutalities. Our homes have been uprooted; there is starvation in parts of Afghanistan.’ And they thought, ‘our American friends will help us.’

But the Americans just walked away. That was the fatal error. When the United States walked away they left a vacuum. The warlords came back, along with local rivalries — and this time the king of Afghanistan was no longer there to act as a unifying force. It was just an implosion of society. In that vacuum, we saw the emergence of the Taliban. In that anarchy and chaos, emerged Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the stage was set for 9/11."

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.

Ssshhh!

Bush is in Saudi Arabia as part of his tour of the Middle East, spreading democratic good will and the like.

Because I don't think its the American president's job to spread democracy, I can't fault Bush for not talking about politics with his Saudi buddies. However, it still remains a highly hypocritical situation. With so much money at stake, it just makes good business sense to be hypocritical. So whose job is it to spread democracy? First and foremost, it is the job of the population in question. Second, it is the job of the international community, including NGO's, to help these populations achieve their goals if they do not have the resources to meet it themselves.

And so I come to my next point, foreign aid. After taking a class entitled Global Poverty and Peace, I decided that governments giving aid for "democratic" movements in foreign states is a bad idea. The American government has historically proven that democracy isn't as important as strategic interests, and so the aid given in many countries is usually seen with immense skepticism and resent. Best example, Operation Ajax in Iran. The spectre of American involvement in that operation is still very fresh in the minds of the Iranians, and similar events have happened all over the Middle East.

The new movie Charlie Wilson's War touches on the subject of American involvement in the creation of the Taliban. I'm not going to see the movie, but its also another good example.

My conclusion is, the American government should just shut up. Not the American people, but the government.

I don't think I'm likely to get a job at the state department anytime soon. What do you think?