Who Are the Taliban?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Who Are the Taliban?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11451718
5 comments
There’s an amazing book by Rory Stewart, a UK diplomat/former MP, called The Places Between. He walked across Afghanistan in 2002 and the book documents his journey. it gives a nuanced cultural description of the tribal landscape (and is fascinating not dry). It’s worth picking up
I was quite impressed by Rory Stuart, it’s a shame he didn’t survive the political chaos of 2019 because ideology aside he seemed to have a wider worldview than his fellow passengers of the traditional Eton to Oxbridge to the Cabinet social pipeline.
I didn’t see it mentioned that USA trained and armed the Taliban when they were waging their jihad against the Soviets.
The Taliban didn’t exist during the Soviet war. The Pakistani ISI, and the US by proxy, trained and equipped the Afghan mujahedeen fighters to fight the Soviets. Then, once the Soviets pulled out, multiple former fighters, notably the Haqqani family, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmad Shah Massoud, and Abdul Rashid Dostum, created their own militias and began fighting over control of various parts of the country.
Pakistani ISI backed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the “Butcher of Kabul”, in an effort to help install a Pakistani friendly government in Afghanistan, but backed off after pressure from the US. The Taliban was then formed in southern Afghanistan by Mullah Mohammad Omar, also from former Soviet fighters, and quickly conquered significant territory from the other warring factions. The Pakistani ISI backed them, but covertly to avoid pushback from the US. The Haqqanis and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar became allies, with the Taliban controlling the majority of Afghanistan, while Ahmad Shah Massoud and his “Northern Alliance” controlled the north.
The US under Clinton was pretty wishy washy about Afghanistan at that point, mostly just wanting the fighting to end. But they did work with Massoud and the Northern Alliance in order to attempt to target Osama Bin Laden after the 1998 embassy bombings. Under Bush, the CIA was in the process of beginning a covert operation to support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, but then Massoud was assassinated by the Taliban on September 9th, 2001, and two days later was 9/11.
Pakistani ISI backed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the “Butcher of Kabul”, in an effort to help install a Pakistani friendly government in Afghanistan, but backed off after pressure from the US. The Taliban was then formed in southern Afghanistan by Mullah Mohammad Omar, also from former Soviet fighters, and quickly conquered significant territory from the other warring factions. The Pakistani ISI backed them, but covertly to avoid pushback from the US. The Haqqanis and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar became allies, with the Taliban controlling the majority of Afghanistan, while Ahmad Shah Massoud and his “Northern Alliance” controlled the north.
The US under Clinton was pretty wishy washy about Afghanistan at that point, mostly just wanting the fighting to end. But they did work with Massoud and the Northern Alliance in order to attempt to target Osama Bin Laden after the 1998 embassy bombings. Under Bush, the CIA was in the process of beginning a covert operation to support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, but then Massoud was assassinated by the Taliban on September 9th, 2001, and two days later was 9/11.
>The Taliban was then formed in southern Afghanistan by Mullah Mohammad Omar, also from former Soviet fighters
Wasn't Omar part of the mujahideen?
Wasn't Omar part of the mujahideen?
That was poor wording on my part. I meant to say anti-Soviet fighters, which you are correct, were Afghan mujahedeen. Mullah Mohammad Omar and all of the original founding leadership were former mujahedeen fighters from the Soviet occupation. But most of the leadership from every militia faction that formed in that post Soviet vacuum were former mujahedeen.
Any books on the subject you'd recommend for curious readers?
Highly recommend Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 and the sequel Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are long but very detailed and really lays out the complex relationships between the CIA, Pakistani ISI, and the various groups that came and went leading up to 9/11 in the first book, and post 9/11 in the second.
Descent into Chaos: The United States & the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan & Central Asia and In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan are also great reads about Afghanistan.
Not as on topic, but still good would include The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth about how the CIA shifted towards more targeting operations and the military shifted to more intelligence gathering and how that has blurred the lines between the two. And The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One about how insurgencies work, how local people are recruited and coopted by globally minded jihadists using local problems, and how a counter insurgency operation requires understanding and addressing local dynamics and issues, and breaking the connection between locally focused fighters and global jihadists.
Descent into Chaos: The United States & the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan & Central Asia and In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan are also great reads about Afghanistan.
Not as on topic, but still good would include The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth about how the CIA shifted towards more targeting operations and the military shifted to more intelligence gathering and how that has blurred the lines between the two. And The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One about how insurgencies work, how local people are recruited and coopted by globally minded jihadists using local problems, and how a counter insurgency operation requires understanding and addressing local dynamics and issues, and breaking the connection between locally focused fighters and global jihadists.
Funny how you do not mention the CIA link through the ISI.
I thought that was clear from me saying “The Pakistani ISI, and the US by proxy,”. If it wasn’t clear, the US (specifically the CIA) absolutely provided money and equipment to the ISI (basically the Pakistan version of the FBI and CIA for anyone that doesn’t know) for them to use to train and equip mujahedeen fighters.
But the ISI was not run by the CIA. Pakistan had, and still has, their own agenda and priorities that do not align with the US. So if you are implying that the ISI funding of the Taliban must have actually been the CIA, that is not supported by the evidence.
But the ISI was not run by the CIA. Pakistan had, and still has, their own agenda and priorities that do not align with the US. So if you are implying that the ISI funding of the Taliban must have actually been the CIA, that is not supported by the evidence.
If not funding, how about training and materiel?
You are like a dog with a bone. As far as I have read anywhere and the available evidence, the CIA did not provide funding, training, or material to the Taliban, and the CIA was specifically pushing to support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. The ISI backed the Taliban before and after 9/11, both to attempt to have some control over them, and to counter Indian attempts at influence through funding the Northern Alliance. ISI’ funding and support of the Taliban in direct contradiction to US efforts is one of the reasons US-Pakistan relations are severely damaged.
None of that is to say the CIA misadventures in Afghanistan before 9/11 were somehow harmless. They handed over briefcases of cash to Jalaluddin Haqqani, who became a key ally of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network he created ended up supplying explosives to the Taliban and lauching highly successful suicide attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.
I know people like simple narratives and having someone to blame, but the situation in Afghanistan over the past 40 years is not simple and is not because of the actions of just one country.
None of that is to say the CIA misadventures in Afghanistan before 9/11 were somehow harmless. They handed over briefcases of cash to Jalaluddin Haqqani, who became a key ally of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network he created ended up supplying explosives to the Taliban and lauching highly successful suicide attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.
I know people like simple narratives and having someone to blame, but the situation in Afghanistan over the past 40 years is not simple and is not because of the actions of just one country.
> the situation in Afghanistan over the past 40 years is not simple and is not because of the actions of just one country
I never made such claims; starting on an ad hominem and ending on a strawman doesn’t really lend much credibility to what lies in between.
I never made such claims; starting on an ad hominem and ending on a strawman doesn’t really lend much credibility to what lies in between.
I mean, you barely said anything, and the few claims you did make were completely incorrect. It seems like you are just throwing out the one thing you think you know "the CIA funded the Taliban!!!" and when that is completely debunked, you ignore all the information, and go for the "your argument is invalid because you used an informal logical fallacy. Checkmate" card. If you have anything at all of substance to say about the situation in Afghanistan, I'd love to hear it.
It's the modern BBC after all. Did you expect unbiased reporting?
That's because such a claim is patently and indisputably false (unless you think the Taliban have time travel capability).
Not entirely false. Taliban was initially formed by Pushtun students of Pakistan Medrese. By coincidence, they were the core of resistance to the Soviet army.
Mohammed Omar, founder of Taliban, was a veteran of Anti-Soviet war.
So, not entirely a time travel case.
Yes, entirely false. The fact that a veteran of some group later did something else doesn't mean everyone involved in the first venture contributed to the second.
That's like saying Peter Thiel founded Tesla. It's so obviously false that anyone pushing that narrative is presumptively dishonest.
That's like saying Peter Thiel founded Tesla. It's so obviously false that anyone pushing that narrative is presumptively dishonest.
[deleted]
From Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Background
> After the Soviet Union intervened and occupied Afghanistan in 1979, Islamic mujahideen fighters engaged in war with those Soviet forces.
> Pakistan's President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq feared that the Soviets were planning to also invade Balochistan, Pakistan, so he sent Akhtar Abdur Rahman to Saudi Arabia to garner support for the Afghan resistance against Soviet occupation forces. A while later, the US CIA and Saudi Arabian General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funnelled funding and equipment through the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) to the Afghan mujahideen.[112]
> About 90,000 Afghans, including Mohammed Omar, were trained by Pakistan's ISI during the 1980s.[112] British professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen: "The West helped the Taliban to fight the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan".[113] Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership previously fought in the Soviet-Afghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen.
> After the Soviet Union intervened and occupied Afghanistan in 1979, Islamic mujahideen fighters engaged in war with those Soviet forces.
> Pakistan's President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq feared that the Soviets were planning to also invade Balochistan, Pakistan, so he sent Akhtar Abdur Rahman to Saudi Arabia to garner support for the Afghan resistance against Soviet occupation forces. A while later, the US CIA and Saudi Arabian General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funnelled funding and equipment through the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) to the Afghan mujahideen.[112]
> About 90,000 Afghans, including Mohammed Omar, were trained by Pakistan's ISI during the 1980s.[112] British professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen: "The West helped the Taliban to fight the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan".[113] Nearly all of the Taliban's original leadership previously fought in the Soviet-Afghan War for either the Hezb-i Islami Khalis or Harakat-i Inqilab-e Islami factions of the Mujahideen.
Actually according to recently declassified documents (and comments by Brezinski in the 1990s) the “rebels” were armed and created before the Soviet invasion by the CIA under Carter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/07/history-tr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/07/history-tr...
So it is a fact that USA created the Taliban. Nice.
There are many facts you can cherry pick to suit whatever narrative you want to sell. Why ignore the support and funding from Sunnis across the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia? Why ignore the founding of early Taliban madrassas by Jamiat Ulema-e Islam in Pakistan?
There's plenty of blame to go around, and no reason to be selective unless you have an agenda.
There's plenty of blame to go around, and no reason to be selective unless you have an agenda.
You make it sound like the SRF don’t owe everything to USA. :)
[deleted]
I saw the headline and felt immediately overwhelmed. I was a university student glued to my TV as the second plane struck the South Tower, as Blair and Bush did their thing and then as the tanks rolled in. Now twenty years later I’m seeing the same fucking headlines rolling by on repeat and I’ve just realised the cycle has begun again.
The west has been fighting and messing around over there since the end of the 19th century.
Realise that 120 years later, the cycle never has ended.
Realise that 120 years later, the cycle never has ended.
Taliban are crazy religious extremists who dynamite ageless UNESCO World Heritage monuments, and preach an irrational and Human Rights violating way of life based on some even dumber than usual interpretations of the Coran.
This is so sad that religions can still have such damaging effects on the world and lives of so many people.
I wonder how big their forces are and how supported they are by the local population.
Twitter refuses to suspend their accounts so the Taliban at least has friends in Silicon Valley.
From the article:
The group is thought to now be stronger in numbers than at any point since they were ousted in 2001 - with up to 85,000 full time fighters, according to recent Nato estimates.
So less than half of the Afghan National Army's 180,000 troops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army
There is a rule of thumb that attackers need to outnumber defenders 3 to 1 in order to win. But that assumes the defenders actually want to do their job.
The group is thought to now be stronger in numbers than at any point since they were ousted in 2001 - with up to 85,000 full time fighters, according to recent Nato estimates.
So less than half of the Afghan National Army's 180,000 troops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army
There is a rule of thumb that attackers need to outnumber defenders 3 to 1 in order to win. But that assumes the defenders actually want to do their job.
I'm not surprised defenders didn't want to do their job, since they were lacking ammos and even food [1].
"Soldiers in Ghurmach in the northern province of Faryab had spoken to a local media about the same topic just a month before, saying, "We haven't eaten for days. We only have four sacks of flour for 400 soldiers. No one cares about us. We can't fight the Taliban on only bread and water.""
It seems that endemic corruptions was one of the main reasons.
"[...] In May 2018, the police in Badghis province in the north-west of Afghanistan confirmed that a contractor that provided food to Afghan security forces was serving up dog meat. "
"[...] According to the same report, there are thousands of 'ghost soldiers' in the ranks of the Afghan army: soldiers who exist only on paper, allowing commanders to inflate their budgets and fill their pockets. An Afghan army soldier earns only 200 dollars a month. "
With all the money that was funneled from the coalition, this doesn't surprise me. In hindsight, I don't see how the Afghan government could have ever survived the Taliban without indefinite presence of the USA.
https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corru...
"Soldiers in Ghurmach in the northern province of Faryab had spoken to a local media about the same topic just a month before, saying, "We haven't eaten for days. We only have four sacks of flour for 400 soldiers. No one cares about us. We can't fight the Taliban on only bread and water.""
It seems that endemic corruptions was one of the main reasons.
"[...] In May 2018, the police in Badghis province in the north-west of Afghanistan confirmed that a contractor that provided food to Afghan security forces was serving up dog meat. "
"[...] According to the same report, there are thousands of 'ghost soldiers' in the ranks of the Afghan army: soldiers who exist only on paper, allowing commanders to inflate their budgets and fill their pockets. An Afghan army soldier earns only 200 dollars a month. "
With all the money that was funneled from the coalition, this doesn't surprise me. In hindsight, I don't see how the Afghan government could have ever survived the Taliban without indefinite presence of the USA.
https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corru...
It would've required the US to do something more sophisticated than giving money to a bunch of corrupt thieves and hoping things work out. US military or civilian leadership is ultimately responsible for the failure even if the Afghan National Army was a complete failure. The ANA was organized and maintained by the US.
[deleted]
> There is a rule of thumb that attackers need to outnumber defenders 3 to 1 in order to win. But that assumes the defenders actually want to do their job.
That is more of a rule for an individual battle. The Afghan army cannot mass all its troops for a battle. They have to attempt to hold large amounts of territory, spreading themselves thin. The Taliban can mass troops in specific areas, so it outnumbers the defenders, and then move on. It is not accurate or fair to portray the ANA as some sort of clearly superior force that just doesn’t feel like fighting.
That is more of a rule for an individual battle. The Afghan army cannot mass all its troops for a battle. They have to attempt to hold large amounts of territory, spreading themselves thin. The Taliban can mass troops in specific areas, so it outnumbers the defenders, and then move on. It is not accurate or fair to portray the ANA as some sort of clearly superior force that just doesn’t feel like fighting.
> The Taliban can mass troops in specific areas, so it outnumbers the defenders, and then move on.
At which point the army could not just move back in and retake the "lost" area because...?
At which point the army could not just move back in and retake the "lost" area because...?
>At which point the army could not just move back in and retake the "lost" area because
Welcome to the last 20 years of counter insurgency in Afghanistan.
Welcome to the last 20 years of counter insurgency in Afghanistan.
Not only didn't you answer the question; you invoked a history which contradicts your model.
The Taliban did not roll through Afghanistan as a big wrecking ball. A moment of thought would tell you that this model does not match the growing area they controlled, nor the way it grew toward Kabul from all sides. Nor is it plausible that the army, with more than double the troops, better vehicles and air support would be unable to converge on your hypothetical wrecking ball.
The Taliban avoided big battles, because they always lost those. By all accounts, their final advance was so rapid only because they met virtually no resistance. When they reached Kabul, they initially stayed outside the city, until word got out that the military and police had abandoned their positions and looting was underway, at which point they announced that they were going in to restore order.
The Taliban did not roll through Afghanistan as a big wrecking ball. A moment of thought would tell you that this model does not match the growing area they controlled, nor the way it grew toward Kabul from all sides. Nor is it plausible that the army, with more than double the troops, better vehicles and air support would be unable to converge on your hypothetical wrecking ball.
The Taliban avoided big battles, because they always lost those. By all accounts, their final advance was so rapid only because they met virtually no resistance. When they reached Kabul, they initially stayed outside the city, until word got out that the military and police had abandoned their positions and looting was underway, at which point they announced that they were going in to restore order.
Who funds the Taliban:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28126421
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28126421
I heard that Taliban rule is, like many authoritarian states, more stable than chaos and civil war, and also reduces crime across the board.
This stability gives a sizable level of local support. For many however it's literally a death sentence.
This stability gives a sizable level of local support. For many however it's literally a death sentence.
Surely any "rule" by definition is more stable than chaos or civil war?
Taliban rule is incredibly oppressive though, almost cartoonishly so. I can't think of any contemporary regime more tyrannical and authoritarian. Their stated aim is to "recreate the time of the Prophet" 1400 years ago.
Taliban rule is incredibly oppressive though, almost cartoonishly so. I can't think of any contemporary regime more tyrannical and authoritarian. Their stated aim is to "recreate the time of the Prophet" 1400 years ago.
Indeed, and topically understanding the urge to order, safety and peace is the key to working out China too as well as the West's befuddlement at the inhabitants attitude towards their own tyrannical and authoritarian state.
China isn't totalitarian but I believe the Taliban aims to be. I should look into this more.
China isn't totalitarian but I believe the Taliban aims to be. I should look into this more.
> I can't think of any contemporary regime more tyrannical and authoritarian.
Kim Dynasty, North Korea.
Kim Dynasty, North Korea.
>This stability gives a sizable level of local support
Support might be a strong word. More like acquiescence. The Taliban actively attempt to undermine and destroy security in areas it does not control. Most Afghans don’t like the Taliban but understand there isn’t really a viable alternative. It is either the chaos of no control, the Taliban randomly attacking people in places secured by the government, or the repressive security of the Taliban.
Support might be a strong word. More like acquiescence. The Taliban actively attempt to undermine and destroy security in areas it does not control. Most Afghans don’t like the Taliban but understand there isn’t really a viable alternative. It is either the chaos of no control, the Taliban randomly attacking people in places secured by the government, or the repressive security of the Taliban.