The conflict in Afghanistan today is much more than NATO coalition forces versus Taliban militants. The situation is much more complex than that. Not only do the Islamic teachings of the radical Umars influence the motives of the militants of the mountainous country, but also their tribal affiliations. The identities that the Afghan people still carry with them from their regional tribes also deeply influence their ideals and beliefs.
For example, just recently the BBC reported that one of Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s body guards was recruited by militants with connections to the Haqqani terrorist network to assonate the president. President Karzai is currently on an official visit to India to sign a strategic partnership agreement with the Indian government (BBC). This is the latest, in a string of high profile Afghan leaders being faced with violence from militants. And like the militants, all of the Afghan officials being targeted are also Muslims. However, the perpetrators of the attacks are not completely based in Afghanistan. Like the recent attempt on president Karzai’s life, the organization responsible for the recent violence against these high Afghan officials is the Haqqani terrorist network.
So what is this Haqqani terrorist network? The Haqqani network is based in the north Pakistan region of Waristan (Khan). You may find that name familiar, for the region has been in the news recently due to the fact that Pakistani government is having trouble controlling the area because the local Pashtun tribes still hold much power there. In fact, the Pakistani army has lost over 700 men through firefights with the tribal warlords there (Khan). The warlords who support the Haqqani of course support the fundamentalist Islamic ideology that the Taliban also teaches, but they belong to the same Pashtun tribal ethnic group that a majority of Pakistanis and Afghanis belong to (Khan).
Pashtun represent the majority of the population of Afghanistan at about 40% (Mazar). They are also the majority in Pakistan, and the two groups are pretty well connected. I read a Gary Schroen’ First In, in high school while researching the topic of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970s-1980s. And in one chapter, he discusses how when the Central Intelligence Agency first started giving funds to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to distribute to the Afghan Mujahedeen, the predominately Pashtun ISI would frequently give most if not all of its funding to the more Pashtun militia groups of the Afghan resistance. Realism cannot explain this, because the ethnicity of the resistance group receiving the funding should not matter, since as long as they are fighting the Soviets, it keeps them farther away from entering Pakistan. And Liberalism would have difficulty explaining this predicament as well since there really is no other way of explaining the Pashtun fighting forces received so much funding other than the fact that they share the same identity as the ISI, the organization handing out the cash. So of course, the Pakistani Pashtun will be more willing to help their fellow Pashtun in Afghanistan than say the Tajiks in Afghanistan.
As the conflict in Afghanistan progressed, the various tribes in Afghanistan got along together quite well, as they continued to fight against the Soviet invaders and the communist Afghan sympathizers. However, after the Soviet forces withdrew in 1989, this created a power vacuum for the newly occupier-free country which caused mass fighting among various tribal warlords (Innocent). This shows that even thought all the tribes united as Afghanis against the common threat of Soviet aggression, but after the threat left, their tribal identities surpassed their national identity. This is most likely due to the fact that before the Soviet invasion happened, Afghanistan was ruled by a monarchy that managed to unite all the tribes under one rule, and the national forces frequently quelled tribal revolts, which resulted in the suppression of tribal identities (Innocent). The Afghans that still felt that strong connection with their tribe now an opportunity to establish their tribe in the new order of Afghanistan, and make it so that they could operate independently and be free of oppression from a national power. However, the Pashtun people who sparked a few of the larger uprising under the monarchy of Afghanistan, by 1996 became the most powerful force in the post-Soviet political atmosphere by taking Kabul, in the form of the Taliban (Innocent). Not only was the Taliban made up mostly of Pashtun people, but the Taliban’s main objective is to put all of Afghanistan under Islamic fundamentalist sharia. So not only would the Taliban appeal to the Pashtun people, but also to likeminded fundamentalist Muslims in different tribes, who most likely would not have joined a just Pashtun military force. This would further swell up the ranks of the Taliban to take control of the country, which worked except for the north of the country, where the more moderate Islamic Tajik tribes resisted Taliban rule successfully (Schroen). And since the Pashtun ruled the country up until the American invasion, Pakistan did not cause much trouble for them.
The war in Afghanistan for the American forces is about to enter its tenth year. And after ten years, only the Khanadar province is really largely uncontrolled by the Afghan government or NATO forces. And the tribal majority here is Pashtun. So why are they still so violent? President Karzai is Pashtun, so they do not face representation problems like the Sunnis faced in Iraq. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the Afghan national government is trying to unite all the tribes in Afghanistan in equality, and the Pashtun do not appreciate that. And it does not help that Pashtun that agree with them in Pakistan still give them support, especially shown from the aftermath of the Osama Bin Laden killing and the various sketchy details that emerged from the actions of certain Pakistani officials, especially from the ISI. Peace will not come to Afghanistan until all the tribes put aside their militant tribal identities and embrace the national identity of being an Afghan, but due to the deep seeded history of their tribal identities, what are the true odds of this happening?
Works Cited
Innocent, Malou. "Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History (Book Review)." Cato Jounal(2010): n. pag. CIAO. Web. 7 Oct 2011.
BBC, . "Afghans say Karzai assassination plot foiled." BBC News South Asia 05 Oct 2011. n. pag. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
Khan, Ilyas. "Haqqanis: Growth of a militant network." BBC News South Asia. BBC, 14 Sep 2011. Web. 7 Oct 2011.
Mazar, . "Afghanistan: A Snapshot."MAZAR DEVELOPMENT FUND. MAZAR DEVELOPMENT FUND, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2011.
Schroen, Gary. First In. 1st. Presido Press, 2005. Print.
You make a very good point about the tribal identity of Afghanistan. As we have seen throughout history, placing a large amount of ethnic groups in one nation and asking them to live peacefully among themselves has never really been successful. And since the majority in Afghanistan is also the majority in Pakistan, this would make it even harder to create a peaceful government that would represent all the tribes equally. What would you say is the best option for Afghanistan if they are to have peace?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shannon, you do make a very strong point about the tribal identity of Afghanistan and why it is not a liberal or realist idea. When we talked in class about the four main types or ideas of constructivism which category do you think this case in Afghanistan would fall under? I really think it could fit into a few different categories.
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your comments. I will first answer Shannon's regarding how Afghanistan might finally achieve peace. I believe this is an extremely tricky situation since Afghanistan has not had a long lasting, peaceful government since colonial times. But as of now,the best option I see now is just to grant the individual tribes self determination. The international community has spent the past ten years trying to get them all to live together peacefully in an unified Afghanistan, and it is still not working. Through this way, tribes may chose on their own to form together as one nation, or chose to exist as there own. That would at least solve the tribal identity crisis, but especially the Pashtun Taliban could still cause problems due to their fundamentalist Islam ideology which calls for putting all of Afghanistan under sharia law. So that could still cause violence against the other tribes.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rachael's comment concerning which category of constructivism this falls under; I actually believe that it can fit into all four. It fits into being a normative belief because the fundamentalist pashtun tribes think that they should rule Afghanistan under sharia law and then promote sharia throughout the world. It also falls into ideology for that is the reason why they fight. They are the pashtun people, united by their history an they continue to fight to promote their shared religion and to silence those who disagree. This is also a rudimentary policy prescription, for from hearing the news from the region, they set up madrases in the tribal regions of Pakistan especially, where the militants instill their beliefs on the tribal youth. These youth then grow up to follow the extremist teachings, and engage in combat. Finally, it is also fits as a casual statement, for they believe that this is what Allah wills, then it must happen. This then causes them to view the west as evil, since they stand in their way.
If we talk about a cautionary tale, then there is one worthy of attention: Afghans celebrate all anniversaries associated with the liberation struggle: the August victory over the British in 1919, and falling in April 1992, Kremlin-backed Najibullah regime. With one exception: they do not celebrate the date of the expulsion of the Taliban from Kabul by coalition forces led by the U.S. in 2001.
ReplyDeleteEven the 7th of October was significant for humanitarian workers, members of the armed forces and diplomatic corps in Afghanistan, but many people in the country entering the tenth anniversary of foreign troops led by the United States has caused conflicting feelings about the presence on Afghan territory by foreign troops. The ambiguity of opinions on this subject stressed to the anniversary protests, which was attended by three hundred people demanding an end of military intervention. At the same time,the protest against the withdrawal of foreign troops was made by a number of women's organizations, who fear that NATO will happen in the absence of clotting achievements of the past years.
Even the population can see a progress, there is still fear to returm to previous regime, but the parties really want to get rid of international corps. So will it be a degradation or development for human rights and sovereighty if invasion will stop?
Thank you for the comment Victoria,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your question, I do believe that a degradation and development on human rights would occur. However, I do not believe Afghanistan sovereignty would be affected, but the current administration in Kabul would probably fall. I imagine that if NATO and other international forces were to withdraw tomorrow, a situation similar to post-Soviet invasion Afghanistan would occur. The various tribal factions would slowly recommence fighting each other, just to be beaten by the larger and Pashtun backed Taliban. And then we would be back to were we started in 2001, a Taliban controlled Afghanistan. And in the after they take control of Kabul, they will most likely re institute their oppressive laws against women, and continue with execution of sharia. S
In conclusion, I hope the international community learned their lesson from 1989, and will stay in Afghanistan until a stable government with an effective military force can hold control over its territory.
Well, it is true, but the troops are there already 10 years, millions of dollars spent, Afghanistan is still poor with war and crisis and with unpredictable future ( at least there is no Bin Laden anymore). Obviously, it is not a solution to withdraw troops right now, and Afghans will care only about their domestic problems, in 10 years it will be again to early to withdraw. s Obama said: "The U.S. can't stay in Afghanistan forever". By the way for him, I guess the best time to do this will be 2014 -the year of election.
ReplyDeleteBut if by a chance it will happen soon, who should take care of Afghanistan? UN? Because if it will be Afghanistan itself, different ethnical groups will be in war again, because no one want to loose priorities and it will become the epicenter of terrorism again/
You bring up some very good points, especially with the fact that the US cannot keep troops in Afghanistan forever.
ReplyDeleteAnd I also believe that if some agency was to over see Afghanistan after coalition troops it would have to be through a UN peacekeeping mission. I have a feeling that whenever that happens it will be an uneasy peace, or first a time of negative peace before living conditions can adequately rise. Only then when people are happy with their living conditions can peace come and terrorism subside.