It is noteworthy that as of 2020 the al Qaeda affiliated East
Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) is no longer on the US terror list and its
political and intellectual leadership is based in the United States.
China is certainly very concerned about the ETIM setting up
shop in Afghanistan, and Beijing is trying to reach out to the Taliban for this
reason among others. One can be certain that China will wish to extend its Belt
and Road Initiative (OBOR) into Afghanistan but there's also the fear that
Afghanistan will become a base or harbour for militants.
But there's another concern and it's one that I've been
talking about for some time – and one I'm starting to become more convinced of.
The US government has all but proclaimed the War on Terror to
have ended. Don't expect an official proclamation, nor a rollback of all the
domestic security measures but the doctrinal and policy statements flowing from
the White House, State Department, and Pentagon indicate this is so. As mentioned
in previous pieces under the scenario of Great Powers Conflict, Salafist
fighters are potential American allies and assets. In the 1980's it was to
fight godless Communism – a narrative that can easily be revived vis-à-vis
China, even if it isn't exactly true. Regardless of the state of religion in
China, the Uighurs are certainly under pressure from Beijing and their culture
and more specifically their Islamic culture is under threat. The US will want
to play this up – indeed Western media is already engaged in a massive
propaganda campaign to do so. While the CCP's oppression campaign cannot be
dismissed there's much to suggest that Western media is being rather selective
with its facts and certainly guilty of exaggeration.
Additionally, Salafism proved convenient to combat the Soviet
Union which at the time possessed the states of Central Asia. These states are
now independent but they're still caught in the tug-of-war between Western
influence and that of Eurasian powers such as Russia and China.
In recent (War on Terror) years we've already seen the US
utilise Islamist fighters in places like Libya, Chechnya and Syria. This is
bound to continue and the latter two examples in particular are in reference to
Russian interests.
The US government is clearly trying to rehabilitate the image
of some al Qaeda affiliates. We've seen this on PBS and elsewhere. It's
reminiscent of the absurd narrative regarding 'moderate rebels' that is still
being propagated in reference to Syria. The 'moderates' they refer to are al
Qaeda affiliates. This tells us a great deal about the nature of the War on
Terror and the sideways course it has taken.
In June I wrote about the 1975 Fall of Saigon and drew
comparisons with what is happening in Afghanistan. The Taliban is making rapid
gains though Kabul (it would seem) is still a somewhat distant prospect. Though
who would have thought South Vietnam would collapse as it did?
At this point in time, all things considered, a case can be
made for US support for Taliban rule in Afghanistan. It may sound insane or
absurd but there's a case to be made. This case can never be public policy. The
US government is not going to repudiate their decades-long policy and
officially state the lost lives in the twenty year war had no meaning. Such a
proclamation is unthinkable.
But the situation has changed. America failed to win the war
and the peace. The country is inherently unstable as it was after the Soviet
departure in 1989. The Taliban despite its brutality actually brought stability
which was (only five years later) shattered by the US invasion.
The optics of a Kabul collapse are bad and I don't think
anyone in Washington wants to see that. And yet it may happen. Or, there's another
possibility. The Kabul regime may stay in place and retain control over a few
pockets of the country. The Taliban may become the de facto rulers of the
nation. The US can save a small amount of face and still retain a presence in
the country – a presence that will also allow them (and the Kabul regime) to
interact with the Taliban. It's already happening. As many know the US is already
supporting the Taliban when they fight ISIS. In other contexts they fight them
but obviously on a rather limited basis. The US gave up trying to militarily
defeat them many years ago.
If the Taliban is willing to allow groups like the ETIM to
form a base and train within their territory then Washington will look the
other way and may give the Taliban some incentives to do the same – or perhaps
even provide quiet assistance.
The fall of Kabul is undesirable and yet at this point in the
Great Powers Conflict (or Cold War II) a Taliban government in Afghanistan
(especially if allied with Washington) is desirable. It creates the very kind
of instability (and potential) on the border of China (and Central Asia) that
the US wants to see. And as we know the Taliban ignores the Durand Line, the
artificial border with Pakistan created by the British in order to (among other
things) divide the rather martially oriented Pashtun people – the ethnic and
cultural base of today's Taliban.
The US is looking to open fronts against its enemies and
Islamic rule in Afghanistan provides a convenient staging ground.
But there's another angle to Taliban rule and one that has
come up just recently. News reports are coming in about fighting outside of
Herat. This was striking because it demonstrates the weakness of the Kabul
regime. Herat in the west is Tajik country and has never been friendly to the
Taliban. Its cultural ties are with Iran to the west. In fact, were Herat to be
subjected to serious threat, combat, or even fall it's likely that Tehran will
get involved. The nature and visibility of the involvement is yet to be
determined.
The city fell to the Taliban in 1995 during the Afghan Civil
War. It's unlikely that the Heratis who hated Taliban rule will simply
acquiesce once again. Many believe the 1999 uprising in the city was sponsored
by Iran and so (some believe) it's likely Iran will intervene before things
reach that point once more.
Western media has occasionally tried to float a narrative
that places Iran into an alliance with the Taliban – not to mention the
ridiculous and baseless Russian bounties story. Common animosity toward the
United States may have allowed for some (rather limited) cooperation between
Tehran and members of the ousted regime (after 2001) but history demonstrates
that the Taliban and Iran are mortal enemies – and the Shia in Afghanistan (in
particular the Hazara who look to Iran for spiritual leadership) will face
genocidal violence – it happened before.
In this scenario the US would love to see Iran get involved.
Washington in that case (not to mention Saudi Arabia) would pour money and even
arms to the Taliban – quietly of course, in order to trap Iran and destabilise
it. Such a conflict also has every potential to spread into Central Asia. Throw
in the ISIS factor and all kinds of things can happen.
The only reason the US would oppose Taliban rule at this
point is because of the loss of face and domestic bitterness over twenty years
of wasted war. Otherwise a Taliban government actually makes sense. I say this
in the cold terms of Realpolitik. Ethics has nothing to do with it. It
certainly didn't when Washington supported the mujahideen and engaged in a
propaganda campaign to paint the Islamist fighters (some of whom would later
join the Taliban) as 'freedom fighters' in the vein of Western democratic
values. It was both laughable and tragic and while the policy brought 'victory'
for the US in the Soviet withdrawal, a terrible price was paid in terms of human
lives and suffering.
The US has continued to re-write the narrative of the Afghan
War. Bush and others have tried to play up the 'women and girls' narrative as
if that had anything to do with why the US invaded. The great irony is that the
radicalisation of the country was primarily due to the US sponsoring of Islamic
fighters in the 1980's – a project which defeated the Soviets but also
transformed and theocratised Afghan society. And we must remember that the
Taliban were born in the Pakistani refugee camps – helped along by Pakistan's
ISI which more than anything sought to pacify its western border.
So what should we think of ETIM activities? This might be
viewed as a side project. Or to take a more cynical view it could be the
opening stages of Operation Cyclone 2.0 – the American-backed mujahideen insurgency
in Xinjiang.
The stage is being set but the timing has to come together.
Look for activities to pick up in conjunction with the Himalayan front(s) and
the South China Sea.
Beijing knows this is coming. They're watching the situation.
They're reaching out to the Taliban and trying to head this off. The US will be
doing all it can to sabotage any kind of Taliban-Beijing deal. But there's no
Zia-ul-Haq this time around. Pakistan was the vital ally in the 1980's and
while Pakistan is still officially an ally, the relationship has soured and
Islamabad has reverted to its longtime friend (and foe of India) Beijing. The US-Pakistan
relationship reached its nadir in the aftermath of the bin Laden raid/assassination
in 2011 and all but collapsed. It has since recovered with Washington and
Islamabad still heavily engaged – but quietly as public opinion remains
hostile. You can be sure Washington is vigorously working to bring Pakistan on
board with its plans – and yet Pakistan is highly unlikely to work against
China. The limit of US hopes are that Pakistan will 'look the other way' while
the US operates (via proxy) in the border regions.
A new chapter has begun or is about to. Sadly it will mean
only more grief and suffering for the people in that part of the world.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires to be sure but it's also their
playground. The tenacity of the Afghans cannot be doubted but the price is
truly terrible.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2021/06/afghanistan-and-fall-of-saigon.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/11/afghanistan-and-iraq-at-end-of-trump-era.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2016/01/saudi-arabia-and-iran-1979-and-islamic.html
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-taliban-enigma-afghanistan-and.html
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2021/06/central-asia-tilts-toward-beijing.html
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-karzai-connection-afghanistan-cia.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.