Understanding Afghanistan

8 01 2012

There’s a circle of journalists and scholars who has been following and writing about Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion days.  One of them is Edward Girardet, whose current book, Killing the Cranes:  A Reporter’s Journey through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan, offers personal accounts and commentaries about his encounters with Ahmed Shah Massoud, Gulbuddin Hekmetyar, and even Osama bin Laden.  Ed was a co-panelist with me at a 9/11 tenth anniversary talk we participated in at the University of Maine School of Law last year.  His talk was absolutely captivating, and I have a hard time putting down his book.

I like to consider myself as part of this circle, as I have also closely followed Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion.  Since 9/11 and the US campaign that toppled the Taliban regime, the US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) have come face-to-face with the complexities of the region.  If only the book Charlie Wilson’s War (2004) had been published sooner!  But, still, I doubt zealous policy makers on all sides would really appreciate or comprehend the complicatedness of the situation in Afghanistan, since diverse factors of the equations pertaining to each and every aspect of the situational factors are rarely considered, not to mention the often imprecise metrics in measuring the effectiveness of policies and strategies help put a more positive spin on the efforts and achievements of the coalition forces.  This is not to say that there are absolutely no positive results at all, but in light of a 2014 drawdown, this political analyst cannot help but be cynical.

For instance, much of Afghanistan’s economy relies on drug production and trafficking, as well as an intricate network of organized criminal activities involving warlords, gangsters, and a variety of opportunists, black marketers, and middlemen.  Check out this November 3, 2010 Time Magazine article (excerpts) describing only one aspect of Afghanistan’s black market economy:

“Popularly known as the ‘Bush Market’ and, increasingly, the ‘Obama Market’ the warren of small shops is the largest of several commercial centers named after U.S. Presidents that have sprung up since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Indeed, the presence of foreign armies in the country has for many years spawned a supply and demand for their homegrown products. Three decades ago, during the Soviet occupation, its forerunner was called the ‘Brezhnev Market’ after the former head of the Communist Party, and its stalls were packed with basic Russian commodities. Now, 10 years into an American-led war, hard-to-find Western items are the top draw. ‘I come here all the time for new clothes,’ says Ajmal, 27, as he browses a selection of North Face trekking shoes. ‘The styles are good, the prices are low. It’s great’ …

 

At the Bagram market, bulletproof vests and Kevlar helmets are known to turn up. U.S. Army and Marine digital-camouflage fatigues are widely available for about $40 a set. And at another market near the capital’s largest mosque, Afghan police, army and even presidential guard uniforms sell for even less. (It’s not unheard of for Taliban suicide bombers disguised as Afghan security forces to infiltrate and attack large gatherings.) Yet shopkeeper Khwaja Muhammad, 23, concedes that although many of the customers are state military employees who go to buy a second uniform or have alterations done, ‘We sell to anybody with cash’.”

 

This is just one small glimpse into a spider-web network of the underground economy in Afghanistan, often linked to counterparts in Pakistan.  Ed’s book drives home the point:  if only we paid attention to certain caveats.

I contend that in order for a viable, legitimate economy to flourish, Afghanistan needs to empower an independent and impartial judiciary, which would presumably prosecute the lawbreakers, including those in the organized crime networks.  Some people argue with me that a viable Afghan judiciary is simply not possible, and even that it’s not the answer to Afghanistan’s problems.  It might not be the answer, but it better be part of the equation.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : 9/11, Afghanistan, Ahmed Shah Massoud, Bagram, Bush, Charlie Wilson's War, Edward Girardet, Gulbuddin Hekmetyar, ISAF, Killing the Cranes, Obama, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, warlords

Fisherman Diplomacy?

6 01 2012

International Relations have seen ping-pong diplomacy, chess diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and musical and cultural diplomacy.  Now, we have the potential for “fisherman diplomacy.”

Thirteen Iranian fishermen were profoundly grateful to the US Navy today.  That’s not something we see often.  Somali pirates had taken over the Iranian vessel and held the crew hostage for weeks.  This happened in the thick of tensions in the Persian Gulf region, with Iran holding naval exercises and threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz; and demanding that the Stennis aircraft carrier leave the region.  Ironically, the very same aircraft carrier group’s forces rescued the Iranian fishermen in response to a distress call.

This development is a golden opportunity for Iran and the US to talk to each other, and in the process calm the tensions that have been building up for the last few weeks.  Interestingly, during all the saber rattling, Iran has hinted at willingness to hold talks about the nuclear program.  The January 7th edition of the Tehran Times reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi “said at a joint press conference with (Turkish Foreign Minister) Ahmet Davutoglu in Tehran on Thursday that the Islamic Republic is also ready to resume talks with the 5+1 group (the UN Security Council members + Germany) at a time and place agreed by both sides.”

However, I could not see any mention of the fishermen’s rescue on the Tehran Times website.  This is not the time to allow egos and pride get in the way of diplomacy and preventing future conflicts.  Rescuing innocent hostages from pirates should be seen as a gesture of good faith.  I recommend that all sides go fishing together, but not in pirate-infested waters.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Diplomacy, Iran, Khamenei, Stennis, Tehran, US Navy

Women are “Strategy,” Says Iran’s Supreme Leader

6 01 2012

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke at a “Forum on Strategic Thought” on Wednesday, the theme of which was “Women and Family.”  This is what he said, according to the Tehran Times:

“’The role of women in the campaign (against the Iranian dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s regime), in the victory of the Islamic Revolution, and after the revolution, particularly during the extremely difficult time of the Sacred Defense (1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war), and in various areas is an effective, special, and unique role, which cannot be measured with any criterion,” the Leader said. 

Ayatollah Khamenei also advised scholars, researchers, and the media to pay due attention to the issues of women and family from the viewpoint of Islam.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader criticized the West’s attitude toward women as insulting and said that this attitude has damaged the dignity and status of women in Western societies.’”

The ambiguity of his comments surprised me.  I don’t know if it was limited reporting, or he in fact did not elaborate on the role of women during Iran’s revolution and crises, and the “special, unique role, which cannot be measured with any criterion.”  Notwithstanding the theocracy’s male-mullah-dominated power structure, it’s extremely unnerving to me that the state would define women’s roles and effectiveness.  I’d like to ask my readers to chime in on this one.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Iran, Iran-Iraq War, Islamic Revolution, Khamenei, mullah, Supreme Leader, Women

Supremacy Squared

5 01 2012

The world now has two “Supreme Leaders”:  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran, and Kim Jong Un in North Korea.  And, the late Colonel Muammar Qaddafi called himself the “Brother Leader.”  But it’s the double “supreme” leaders that render a global enigma.  Can the world have two “supreme leaders”?  Of course, this is a rhetorical question, tinged with a dose of sarcasm.

Khamanei runs a totalitarian theocracy, based on Twelver Shiism.  Kim Jong Un, now succeeding his deceased father, Kim Jong Il, heads a totalitarian “Stalinist” state.  Both, to varying degrees, stoke personality cults, both rely on powerful militaries, and both embrace nuclear power.  The legacy of both has led their respective countries into isolation, invited harsh economic sanctions, arrested socioeconomic development, brutally repressed opposition and grossly violated human rights, and provocatively brought their countries to the brink of war without regard to the consequences of their actions, and at the expense of their own people.  Supremely reckless indeed.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Iran, Khamenei, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Supreme Leader

Legitimizing the Taliban

3 01 2012

“American officials have said in recent months that the opening of a Taliban mission would be the single biggest step forward for peace efforts that have been plagued by false starts.”  This is a quote in today’s New York Times in an article entitled, “Taliban to Open Qatar Office in Step to Formal Talks.”  Pundits are viewing this as a prime opportunity and venue to hold “peace talks” with the Afghan Taliban.  However, I see something different:  (1) the post-9/11 war effort that toppled the Taliban from power, ten years later, only seems to revert back to negotiations with the very same enemy to share power after the US / ISAF pull-out in 2014; and (2) this “mission” is a means for backdoor legitimacy for the Taliban (although we know that they are not one monolithic entity – the top echelons under Mullah Omar will likely benefit most).

This is a very dangerous precedent, because it symbolizes what I call the calcification of the mind.  The Taliban are the enemies of knowledge.  Their empowerment, or return to empowerment, even if it’s limited, does not bode well for the future of Afghanistan, which, in my view, will fall back to square one.  No doubt, some Taliban are already congratulating themselves for their “victory” in gaining even an ounce of legitimacy, just by virtue of being recognized as an entity with which presumably peace talks can happen.  Once again, no one is thinking about the ideological and developmental disaster this portends for the Af-Pak region.

Consider this:  In Quil Lawrence’s NPR report (September 8, 2011), he interviewed a member of the Afghan Parliament who was also in the Northern Alliance, now a school principal.  Here is what Jaleb Mubin Zarifi, an ethnic Tajik, said in the interview:  “Democracy is un-Islamic,” and he praised the laws of the Taliban, saying, “The laws that they [Taliban] implemented – a good example, for instance, is about women – they asked all women to wear hijab (headscarf), and that’s a good thing.  And we know now that the women are not wearing hijab, and look what’s happening:  there’s cancer and AIDS everywhere now in Afghanistan.”  This was a Northern Alliance guy, not even Taliban.  Add the Taliban into the mix, and brace for the 21st century Inquisition.  Militant ideologies will have a field day.

This is not to say that a viable resolution should not be pursued in Afghanistan.  However, this rush to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, and even opening a mission office for them in Qatar smacks of desperation to plug all the holes before pulling out of Afghanistan, out of fear that President Karzai’s house of cards might collapse, perhaps from the force of Taliban laughter in the wind.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : 9/11, Afghanistan, ISAF, Karzai, Militant Ideologies, Mullah Omar, Northern Alliance, Qatar, Taliban

The Syrian Paradox

2 01 2012

In September 2010, I attended a public lecture at the Salve Regina University Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy in Newport, Rhode Island.  The speaker was the Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.  The auditorium was standing room only, and he proved to be a captivating speaker.  Ambassador Moustapha was articulate, engaging with the audience, knowledgeable, and overall an excellent orator, with panache for persuasion.

Similarly, former Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa manifested his cleverness and political savvy, especially during the Madrid talks (1991).  When you get a chance, watch the footage of FM al-Sharaa when he responds to the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who in opening remarks, even before the “peace talks” began, condemns Syria as the “haven for terrorists” (paraphrasing).  FM al-Sharaa was the next speaker at the podium, and he decides to change his speech upon hearing PM Shamir’s hostile rebuke; instead he whips out a piece of paper and holds it up to the audience, and al-Sharaa points to the paper and exclaims in the mic that Shamir himself was a wanted terrorist during the British mandate era.  Shamir’s photo was on the paper, with the words “WANTED” in bold type on top, a wanted poster from the 1940s.  You can find this footage in the PBS documentary film “The 50 Years War:  Israel and the Arabs.”

The point of all this is that Syria is full of paradoxes.  Having lived in Syria for almost a year, I discovered that the political elite is usually highly educated and politically very savvy.  The educated classes in Syria are also very impressive, and I am sure particularly among the youth who are spearheading the current protest movements, we are likely to find some of the most intelligent individuals.  Despite these rich assets, Syria has a very dark side, as we are witnessing today, although it’s not unprecedented.  The father, Hafez al-Assad, set the bar for brutality, no doubt.  So, in one sense, we should not be surprised about Bashar al-Assad’s reactions and brutality.  On the other hand, one would believe that after all these years the Syrian government would mature.  Not so.  Hafez and Bashar have kept Syria economically lagging, politically isolated (with the exception of strong ties with Iran), and violent repression seems as routine as breathing.  Police states do not flourish socioeconomically and otherwise.  They only invest heavily in the military, and lock their boots on the necks on their own people.  Imagine if all those resources were invested in development, education, economic ventures, technology, R&D, I mean, where would Syria be today with that kind of investment and visionary leadership?

Syria today is a grave tragedy, and each time I see the headlines, it breaks my heart.  Having seen the paradoxes in Syria, I should not be too surprised, but I am profoundly affected nonetheless.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Assad, Syria

Women and War / Peace

1 01 2012

Please watch this CBS News profile of Zainab Salbi, founder of Women for Women, an NGO that helps women war victims rebuild their lives (the org:  http://www.womenforwomen.org/about-women-for-women/zainab-salbi.php).

Here’s the CBS News piece:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7393442n&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsPCAnswer+(PC+Answer%3A+CBSNews.com)

I fervently hope that this year the plight of women, and women’s empowerment, will become the priorities from the societal level all the way up to policy makers, worldwide.


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : War, Women

Next Entries »