The end of this post was one of the funnier things I saw today.
One of the odder things I recall being told this year was to read Jihad because it is “mentioned a lot in the literature.” I can’t for the life of me really understand why, but I suppose it explains a bit why Central Asian studies could use some work.
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2040 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan founded Registan.net in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural factors shape risks and opportunities. Follow him on Twitter or drop him a line.
{ 9 comments }
I’m afraid it’s one of the requirements of advanced studies that you have to read the rubbish in order to be able to identify it. Moreover, it’s important for those people who care about the quality of literature on Central Asia (such as your good self) to be able to give informed opinions on the good AND the bad stuff. If Jihad is good for anything, at least it gives a basic outline of events. Finally, people expect you to have read it, even if you don’t want to. Just the way it goes, ‘spose …
Wow, you’d almost think Rashid is a Pakistani who hates all those damned Turkics in his country or something.
It’s funny, I’ve been a big fan of the 2/3 of “Ghost Wars” that I’ve read so far, as it is surprisingly neutral, at least as far as a book about how badly the U.S. bungled things can be neutral. Steve Coll references Rashid a lot, though, and Taliban had been on my list (I haven’t read it, obviously). Now I’m wondering if it would be worth my time.
Nathan, Thanks for the link. I agree with the author–Rashid is obviously biased, as the pull quotes illustrate…
I think those quotes about Uzbeks from Taliban were taken out of context — read the passages yourself and see. The reason so many people cite it and Jihad is that they both uncover so much new stuff. You can quibble with his interpretation — Jihad overstated the Islamist threat in Central Asia — but his reporting is top-class. I just happened to reread the chapters in Taliban about Unocal, Bridas and the Taliban and was reminded again of how much deeper this guy goes than other people doing the same thing.
I think those quotes about Uzbeks from Taliban were taken out of context — read the passages yourself and see. The reason so many people cite it and Jihad is that they both uncover so much new stuff. You can quibble with his interpretation — Jihad overstated the Islamist threat in Central Asia — but his reporting is top-class. I just happened to reread the chapters in Taliban about Unocal, Bridas and the Taliban and was reminded again of how much deeper this guy goes than other people doing the same thing.
apologies for the double (now triple) post.
Ahmed Rashid is a prolific and busy journalist, for sure. And indeed, he was very active in Afghanistan and Central Asia during the 1990s when no-one was much interested or really cared, but his books, to my mind, reflect his journalistic background in that ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. This may be a fair enough approach when covering Afghanistan (and dictates the tone of Taliban), but Jihad rather gives the impression that Central Asia was in constant upheaval in the 1990s when in fact, the Tajik civil war aside, it was relatively calm.
I’m currently reading a memoir by the Pakistani diplomat, S. Iftikhar Murshed, who was at the forefront of attempts to negotiate a peace settlement between the various Afghan factions pre-2001, which must have required the wisdom of Solomon combined with the patience of Job. His account is a refreshing and alternative view on the whole mess, and whilst there is clearly an element of personal bias, he points out that Russia and Iran were guilty of helping to prolong the agony by supplying weapons to the Northern Alliance; moreover, he does a very good job of demonstrating that the Taliban weren’t quite as in the pocket of the ISI as most people assume. Anyway, I reccomed it, even if it is a little dry and leaden in form.
Nick et al,
Ishlaringiz qanday? I agree, “Jihad” is one of the few ways for people to be introduced to the region, unfortunately. I guess I might assign it to undergrads for “a basic outline” since works by Olivier Roy, Pauline Jones-Luong and Adeeb Khalid are probably not good as intros to the region.
I don’t want to dissuade anybody from actually reading “Taliban.” Just realize that Rashid’s expertise is more in the Pashtun areas and Kabul. Alternatives to Rashid for the 1990s in Afghanistan would be books by Kamal Matinuddin, M. J. Gohari, Antonio Giustozzi, Larry Goodson, William Maley (ed.) and Amin Saikal. Although these books also have some drawbacks (but which don’t include ethnic bigotry).
Of course the best book of all is Gilles Dorronsoro’s book “Revolution Unending: Afghanistan 1979 to the Present.”
Thanks for the “heads up” about Murshed’s book.
And Josh, I agree that Rashid’s reporting is “top class.” He is a good journalist. He just looks bad when compared to articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. I guess it’s more a problem with journalism than with Mr. Rashid.
I agree that Rashid’s great merit is, that he has ‘popularised’ the issue of CA to a certain extent. He certainly is a good journalist for as far as Pakistan and Aghanistan go. On the other hand, I do have the impression that he is somewhat out of his element once he crosses the Panj-Amu Darya into the southern ex-USSR. He does peaks Urdu and Farsi, I’m not sure he knows Russian.