Rolling Stone Embeds with the Taliban

[The Bread Guy]

Ethics of a reporter travelling with the Taliban aside, some interesting tidbits from this longish piece in Rolling Stone magazine (.pdf version if link doesn't work)

....  As the Taliban insurgency spreads, it has fallen victim to the tribal rivalries and violent infighting that are endemic to Afghanistan, which is home to hundreds of distinct tribal groups. "The leadership is totally fragmented," a senior U.N. official says. "There is a lot of criminality within the Taliban." With the targeting of civilians now sanctioned by the Taliban, top commanders compete for prize catches, stopping cars in broad daylight and checking the cellphones of foreigners to determine if they are worthwhile captives ....

.... I have been caught in the midst of the bitter and often violent infighting that divides the Taliban. Ibrahim's recent injury, it turns out, was the result of a clash between his forces and a group of foreign fighters under the command of Dr. Khalil. The foreigners wanted to close down a girls' school, sparking a battle. Two Arabs and 11 Pakistanis commanded by Dr. Khalil had been killed by Ibrahim's men ....

.... The Bush administration is placing its hopes on presidential elections in Afghanistan next year, but everyone I speak with in Kabul agrees that the elections will be a joke. "The Americans are gung-ho about elections," a longtime nongovernmental official tells me. "But it will only exacerbate ethnic tensions." In Pashtun areas controlled by the Taliban, registration would be virtually impossible, and voting would invoke a death sentence — effectively disenfranchising the country's dominant ethnic group ....

.... Negotiating with the Taliban would also enable the Americans to take advantage of the sharp divisions within the insurgency .... "The U.S. should try to weaken the Taliban," a former Taliban commander tells me. "They should make groups, divide and conquer. If someone wants to use the division between Haqqani and Omar, they can." ....

.... The Bush administration believes it can stop the Taliban by throwing money into clinics and schools. But even humanitarian officials scoff at the idea. "If you gave jobs to the Viet Cong, would they stop fighting?" asks one. "Two years ago you could build a road or a bridge in a village and say, 'Please don't let the Taliban come in.' But now you've reached the stage where the hearts-and-minds business doesn't work." ....

.... the Taliban have their own faith, and so far, they are winning. On my last day in Kabul, a Western aid official reminds me of the words of a high-ranking Taliban leader, who recently explained why the United States will never prevail in Afghanistan.  "You Westerners have your watches," the leader observed. "But we Taliban have time."

 

[Garett]

Collaborator

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Whilst it is distasteful, at least we can get an insight into our enemy. Cries of 'collaborator' smacks of exactly what we are fighting against. The good news is in the reports of infighting, if we can get the local 'taliban' on side against the foreigners, as per the sunni tribes 'awakening' movement in iraq, we can greatly increase our chances of winning the fight.

 

[OldSolduer]

Who says this can't be a disinformation campaign? Our media are notoriously naive at times.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps it's nothing more than a reporter doing his job, and reporting the other side of the story. You know, the side that journalists normally speculate on for their own gains, or simply make up to bolster their argument, because they are too lazy or scared to get the facts.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Very good point OS, could be  a disinformation.

But to what end, surely the Taliban would want to present a united front, with no mention of criminality or ethnic division.

 

[dapaterson]

The Taliban is not, nor has it ever been, a monolithic entity.  Treating it as such is a mistake.

It is probably best compared to a group of loosely allied fiefdoms, working together when it is in their interest to do so.

Documents such as this are useful to glean some insight whch can be validated (or disproved) using other sources and tools.

I've got much mroe respect for a journalist willing to embed with the Taliban than for them moussed coifs who sit in KAF, smile and condescend to the soliders there, and refuse to cover stories because "Polio innoculations?  That's so... Africa.  Don't you have something better for me?"

 

[The Bread Guy]

Whilst it is distasteful, at least we can get an insight into our enemy.

Documents such as this are useful to glean some insight whch can be validated (or disproved) using other sources and tools.

For sure.

Who says this can't be a disinformation campaign? Our media are notoriously naive at times.

Maybe, but you can also learn from how some lies are crafted - according to this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80219/post-770484.html#msg770484
the Taliban want no night-time cell phone service because such service is bad for the everyday Afghan.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

 

[TacticalW]

the Taliban want no night-time cell phone service because such service is bad for the everyday Afghan.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

Hehe, I wonder exactly how high the casualty rate is from those accidentally detonated IEDs... large I hope. Large enough for them to make this rule

How can we deny the Afghans their god given right to use cell phones at night? Let those calls be senteth I say for the good of freedom

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hehe, I wonder exactly how high the casualty rate is from those accidentally detonated IEDs... large I hope. Large enough for them to make this rule

Methinks the rule was more about this:

The invader enemies use their equipment to spy on telephones mainly from sunset to sunrise.

 

[Garett]

Whilst it is distasteful, at least we can get an insight into our enemy. Cries of 'collaborator' smacks of exactly what we are fighting against.

If you check out the captions of the photos that accompany the article, he refers to a senior Taliban commander as his "good friend". To me the aim of this article (which declares that the war is lost) is to target the will of NATO's center of gravity, the civilian voter. I'm all for unbiased journalism and getting an accurate behind the scenes view of whats going on, but this guy is a douche bag.

 

[Kilo_302]

The article seemed pretty neutral to me. This guy isn't glorifying the Taliban or anything.

As the Taliban have attempted to counter the Americans by adopting the tactics of Iraqi insurgents, they have become far more brutal than they were when they ruled Afghanistan. To sow insecurity, they routinely enter villages and bypass traditional tribal mechanisms, waging a harsh campaign of social terror.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Very interesting article and shows some good information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. People are quick to dehumanize and demean "enemies" in history, and the Taliban are no exception. Instead of continually antagonizing a serious opponent to stability in Afghanistan, we can instead learn about their motivations so we can hit the root of the problem. Its very easy to simply wave aside an entire movement as "evil", its a lot harder to understand them and learn their motivations.

Hopefully this is a good step towards understanding what motivates these people, and what we can do to move towards reconciliation and dialogue.

 

[Fusaki]

Very interesting article and shows some good information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. People are quick to dehumanize and demean "enemies" in history, and the Taliban are no exception. Instead of continually antagonizing a serious opponent to stability in Afghanistan, we can instead learn about their motivations so we can hit the root of the problem. Its very easy to simply wave aside an entire movement as "evil", its a lot harder to understand them and learn their motivations.

Hopefully this is a good step towards understanding what motivates these people, and what we can do to move towards reconciliation and dialogue.

I think you need to man up, put in for a tour, and see the situation on the ground. After you've been covered in moon dust I might take you seriously.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

I think you need to man up, put in for a tour, and see the situation on the ground. After you've been covered in moon dust I might take you seriously.

Being an Infantrymen on the ground does not make one a relevant source on international and national politics. Granted those experiences provide very good interaction with local populace and a view of micropolitics in the region, however it does not make said person a comprehensive source on the nation-wide politics of our operations in Afghanistan. Now if I was talking about convoy escort, life in a FOB, or brigade-level infantry operations then I would certainly wish to have that needed background. However I am talking about the future of an entire nation, and of our international efforts therein. One does not require a tour to be knowledgeable in that aspect.

 

[GDawg]

Being an Infantrymen on the ground does not make one a relevant source on international and national politics. Granted those experiences provide very good interaction with local populace and a view of micropolitics in the region, however it does not make said person a comprehensive source on the nation-wide politics of our operations in Afghanistan. Now if I was talking about convoy escort, life in a FOB, or brigade-level infantry operations then I would certainly wish to have that needed background. However I am talking about the future of an entire nation, and of our international efforts therein. One does not require a tour to be knowledgeable in that aspect.

You didn't mention international and national politics, you said information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. I would wager Wonderbread and the rest of us who have been there have metric shitloads of information regarding the situation in Afghanistan, from this very moment and all the way back to 2001. If you want to wrap your head completely around Afghanistan and the international politics related therein and to glimpse into the future maybe you should consider opening your eyes and ears and your brain and not antagonize people who have lived, breathed, and ate Afghanistan and not base your entire haughty assessment of Afghanistan on what one Rolling Stone reporter regurgitated from the Taliban.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

You didn't mention international and national politics, you said information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. I would wager Wonderbread and the rest of us who have been there have metric shitloads of information regarding the situation in Afghanistan, from this very moment and all the way back to 2001. If you want to wrap your head completely around Afghanistan and the international politics related therein and to glimpse into the future maybe you should consider opening your eyes and ears and your brain and not antagonize people who have lived, breathed, and ate Afghanistan and not base your entire haughty assessment of Afghanistan on what one Rolling Stone reporter regurgitated from the Taliban.

My assessment does not come solely from one Rolling Stone's report, I assure you. Furthermore, that informations is certainly useful and highly valuable, but what I am getting at is the current overglorification of knowledge involved with deployed members. Yes, by being deployed and being involved in those operations, they have some very key information to give to us regarding the situation on the ground. On the other hand though, to simply dismiss my argument (which has been done plenty of times) by using this logical fallacy of appealing to authority (in this case the authority of a deployed member) is a poor way of handling things. If you are a deployed member or know of one, please use their information as it is. That being said though, it does not give them a free license to throw their weight as some ultimate appeal to authority and the idols of knowledge from the region. Afterall, what most soldiers are involved in are very small scale operations and environments, not the large-scale analysis thats needing for the most part in these types of policy decisions. Again I stress though, those experiences are incredibly valuable and valid still, and should be used accordingly.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

and not antagonize people who have lived, breathed, and ate Afghanistan and not base your entire haughty assessment of Afghanistan on what one Rolling Stone reporter regurgitated from the Taliban.

+1....and would add, those who have bled in afghanistan.

See what human capital we are expending in the region, FIRST HAND, and you will have a pretty good idea of the price, and risk, of our international efforts.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ask yourself why people dismiss your arguments, perhaps if you never started posting confrontationally to some initially as you did, people would be more open to your comments. So it should not be a surprise to you. You are articulate enough, better then most here, however, your delivery leads a lot to be desired. Work on the delivery of your arguments to be less confrontational and you might find the discussion you are looking for.

Until then then I can't see anyone being receptive to your comments at all.

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree with Ex-Dragoon. Your delivery needs a dash of diplomacy and tact. Your arguments are sound, but your dismissal of those on the ground is definitely a mistake. You would be very surprised at the level of understanding the young soldier of today possesses.