One of the things I love about blogging is the conversational tone, and even more so, the debates that result. I enjoy being challenged, since as long as it’s done in good faith (as you and several regular commenters do), it is constructive and serves to better refine my own thoughts and analysis.

The reason I said “feel free to prove me wrong” above is that, though I am not an expert on Islamism in Central Asia, I am familiar with the subject—more so than an average reader or blogger or college graduate. And in my readings of even academic material on the subject, which is not even remotely exhaustive but done in the useful context of geopolitics, it is mentioned in vague or harmless terms. Furthermore, by noting the shallowness of the reporter’s sources, I was pointing out that my gut and experience tell me he didn’t do enough research to at least be skeptical of the claims of HuT’s imminent threat to all governments in the area.

That was the original point. Even with Nathan’s admirably high standards, calling “BS” on an article—especially when it’s run by a publication I respect—is fair game. Nathan does it all the time. I think offering up my skepticism as the jumping off point for a discussion adds value to the debate: “yes you’re right, here’s why I know this” or “no you’re wrong, here’s why I know this.” My intention seems to fall into line with what yours.

As for the bit about sourcing. Yes, I could have linked to the dozens of articles I’ve read, but I think in this specific case, it’s more useful to turn the onus around: if the reporter is going to claim that radical Islamism represents an existential threat to Central Asia, but then only quotes vague warnings from western NGOs (a useful slice of the NGO-bashing), it is reasonable to simply say, “this does not match with my experience or understanding of the issue.”

As for the usual suspects in the comment threads… Well, that comes with the territory. There is no way to avoid people making arguments you find silly on the Internet, though I think Nathan does an admirable job of suppressing trolls and demanding civility. Poor reasoning in the comment section of a blog post, even when merely summarized in caricature, is hardly a crime.

Without harping on the original error in your post any longer, which I didn’t mean to be petty about, I think my real concern is this–yes, a mistake was made and admitted, corrected, and we’ve moved on–you’ve established that you don’t make any claims to be an expert on the Ferghana region, and I’m sure you’re underplaying your own knowledge. However, this leads me to wonder what the value, then, of making the original post was… if you don’t know much about Ferghana, or about HuT and the IMU, then how do you form the basis of your original opinion about the article?

My suggestion is that rather than throwing around our “expert” opinions (and in fact I both hope and doubt that any of us would describe ourselves as regional experts) and making broad, wholesale judgments about issues, we make more carefully reasoned statements supported by details. If we can speak from personal experience, then fantastic–let’s identify it as that and then others can learn from our experiences. If our opinions are based on facts that we’ve gotten from publications or other people, then let’s name some names and be specific, so that others can follow our paper trails and make this blog a place that can be a valuable resource for people who are interested in and care about the region.

This is not, after all, an American Idol blog where a bunch of teenagers barf out their opinions about TV. We’re talking about very real and important issues here–and sure, there are weird and funny things that happen in the region that we can talk about too, and yes, naked opinions are sometimes a spur for really good discussions…. but all that said, I still think there’s something to be said for thoughtful and careful responses (and Joshua, I am not speaking at all to your subsequent posts on this string… but I don’t find weary’s political screed to be all that useful an addition to any of this… nor actually Laurence’s predictable NGO bashing and Shirin Akiner promotion–but he is entitled to his own opinions and he and I actually go way back on this issue, though that’s not clear since I changed my screen name).

These are just my thoughts. It’s not my blog, and I hope nobody takes this personally. Kudos to Nathan, and to you too, Josh, this blog has always been something I’ve been proud to participate in.

It’s all good. I was snappy as well, writing at 1 am after a long day.

Sorry for being pissy. You have acknowledged the slip more times than should have been necessary, and I should have been fairer. In my defense, I see red whenever someone tries to pass off Akiner’s Andijan report as anything other than an overly long hack job, and I overreached.

So in penance, I’ll try to say something slightly substantive on topic. The influence of Islamists is probably waning thanks to the military defeats of the IMU and like-minded bands and the realization by Karimov and his neighbors that they may have been a bit quick to accept all the Arab-funded mosques (though this took place before 2001) , though the phenomenon was surely a bit overblown to begin with.

Well, let’s get back on track here—this isn’t about Andijon. It was my mistake to conflate HuT and IMU, and I allowed for as much in both the original post and my subsequent comments. It is, however, I think, a forgivable mistake (especially since I make no claims to authoritative knowledge on the Ferghana), as they both saw their influence, power, and effect dwindle at generally the same time. As several commenters pointed out above, that doesn’t mean either has gone away (since at least the IMU is playing nasty in NWFP Pakistan and HuT loves trying to stir the pot), merely that their impact in the rest of the ‘Stans is more limited than the CS Monitor article would suggest.

Noah, your comment about professionalism (which I believe is directed at me) is puzzling and somewhat insulting. Especially in a blog format, admitting one’s limits should be a virtue, not a vice—especially is said admission spurs constructive conversation (which I think this thread is teetering around). That being said, you’re absolutely right that I was imprecise in my characterization of Islamism in the Ferghana region, though to repeat my defense in the above paragraph, I admitted as much. You still agree with the gist of what I was saying, however.

The stuff about ICG is at best tangential. I have found some of their reports illuminating, some of them fluff—just like any other organization or publication. Arguing about the worth of various scholars is fine, but definitely outside the bounds of this discussion. Maybe Nathan would be better for framing a debate about academic credibility, but I can set up a post for that purpose if you’d like.

Dolkun, the distinction between the two didn’t escape the literature review I did, but it was about geopolitical considerations and not specifically religious extremism. So I didn’t focus too heavily on that aspect of the region—which was, in fact, a limitation I copped to in the intro.

Last note: let’s please keep this civil, even if you go way off topic.

1) NGOs receive funding from governments, corporations, individuals and their own revenue activities. None of these funding sources determine whether an NGO is real or not. This holds for Tajik NGOs and it holds for ICG. I don’t know how ICG’s board works in detail, but usually people with good reputations don’t just put their names on projects they find lacking in quality, but will rather exercise their oversight function. That the staff themselves are not big names would tend to be a function of the nature of the work and the salary. Lawrence, do you have anyone specific in mind, or are you simply tossing a stink bomb in the direction of ICG’s staff?

2) Shirin Akiner’s report on Andijan could be labeled a dissident view, or it could be labeled not worth wiping your ass with. Not because I disagree with her, but because her evidence does not withstand scrutiny. As has been discussed in this blog, she is a world champion speed interviewer by her own account, which a) sheds doubt on her credibility and b) reflects a poor understanding of human nature — you don’t walk up to someone in Andijan whom you’ve never met before and expect to get honest answers, particularly after from 187 to 500 of his fellow residents have recently been shot dead. And the stuff about the well-tended flower beds and lack of bullet casings reflects either a startling naivete or a fantastic grasp of the absurd.

Of course, they may have their own politics, and while some of their field researchers may not have PhDs, that doesn’t make the work that they do somehow less legitimate out of hand. In fact I know that in their case in particular, the scholars they hire to run their divisions are top notch and come sometimes from the most prestigious departments in the field.

But this may be totally irrelevant and have nothing to do with the quality of their output on C-Asia.

On a different note, I agree that this is a venue more credible than just about any other post-Soviet blog (and apologies for still using that broad category, but I think the shoe still fits…), and kudos to Nathan for making that to case. At the same time, I have to say I’ve seen a lot of wack (to use an academic term) comments all over the blogs I read lately. Not sure if that’s what Noah had in mind – I think he was making a plea for precise use of names by regular participants, rather than decrying the rise of the trolls, but still…

While I agree with the principle that anybody seriously trying to create an Islamic caliphate in Central Asia is both off their rocker and in a tiny minority that doesn’t represent the population, that is the stated aim of this group and their popularity does appear to be growing in Kyrgyzstan. They are not a figment of Dick Cheney’s imagination, or anybody else’s for that matter. They are very real and they have a very real appeal to people living in
poverty and hopelessness.

I’ve been participating in this blog for several years (I used to use a different name because I was living in Uzbekistan at the time and couldn’t have my comments attached to the school I worked for) and I have to say I feel like the posts are kind of going downhill. If you want this blog to be taken seriously–and I believe Nathan has worked very hard to make this a space that can and should be taken very seriously–some of these strings could do with some professionalism and some “precision” in terms. If we take this area and its people seriously, I would suggest posting comments that are well thought-out and well-informed.

The “academic” literature on CA suffers tremendously from an overabundance of half-cocked and politically charged commentary and research–please let’s not add to it!