On first look,
this article suggesting a limited regional autonomous state for the Taliban might seem reasonable. Give them a chance to show their flaws of governance, it says. Let them learn how ineffective their strictures are for running an entire state. They won't be able to keep up a pro-narcotics policy; they'll have to institute proper public education to support madrassas. After all, they represent an indigenous tradition.
Except that all of those arguments are either flawed or simply untrue.
The Taliban do not represent an indigenous religious or ethnic tradition. Their religious doctrine is based on Wahabbi doctrine imported from Saudi Arabia. Or, more properly, exported *by* Saudi Arabia, all over South Asia and Central Asia, using their vast oil wealth to fund religious "schools" to indoctrinate local students, not in religion but in an extremist cultural standard powdered over with dusting of religious texts. Taliban practices run counter to many established Pashtun traditions, and their model of centralized religious authoritarianism completely undercuts the tribal and village government systems of traditional Pashtun culture.
The Taliban embrace narcotics agriculture, processing, and export, and have done so ever since the movement arose. They justify it on the grounds that it is for foreign use and that "proper" Afghans don't use heroin, despite the massive growth of drug use among Afghans under their rule.
And that's the biggest flaw in this article's reasoning--the Taliban already *had* a chance to show what they are worth. They captured and ruled part of the country for two years, and then they conquered and ruled almost the entire nation for five years. They have shown that they are prepared to live with the way their style of governing cripples the effective government of a nation (during much of the five years the Taliban ran Afghanistan, "public finances" and "government treasury" consisted of Mullah Omar handing out wads of cash from a big tin trunk in his office, according to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. They didn't care that the country fell into disrepair. They were unconcerned by the disaffection and bitter unrest their rule caused in the population. They knew that no one in areas they had pacified would dare to oppose them; their mass slaughter in any city or town that resisted them and the continuous spate of judicial murder that took place after they gained power completely cowed any opposition. They were tone-deaf in international relations as well, causing bitter enmity in Iran when they murdered a handful of Iranian diplomats. They publicly insulted Prince Nayef of Saudi Arabia, causing huge offense to the Saudi government that had bankrolled them and still sent government and private contributions in the millions of dollars to shore up their finances. After receiving massive support from Pakistan and its intelligence services, they've turned around and mentored a Taliban within Pakistan that has attacked the Pakistani government and military and threatens civil war over religion. They even bombed a pro-Palestinian rally because it was being held by Shi'a, which Sunni extremists like the Taliban consider "not real Muslims".
And the Taliban have shown that they won't be prepared to accept limited regional authority. When they first gained local control in Kandahar in the early 1990s, they used that as a stepping stone to conquer regions where they had *no* popular support and to force their mores and "culture" on the inhabitants of those areas at gunpoint.
So, no, let's not give the Taliban "a chance". They've had a chance already, and Afghanistan is black with the corpses of the innocent civilians who had to endure that "experiment".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
