Comments on: A “United Front” on Terrorism? Not Since 1979…

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:59:17 +0000

Thank you Jonst.

But seriously, the Taliban became well known as a fighting force in 1994, but they existed years before that as – guess what – radical madrassa students (see the pattern?). Since their existence at the behest of Pakistan has spanned more than one decade, I feel safe saying Pakistan has supported them for decades.

By: jonst

jonst — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:09:04 +0000

Aamir,

While Joshua is more than capable of speaking for himself…..what would call the support for anti-Soviet activies started in 1979 by the Carter Admin in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What would you call the Pak/Saudi/American support given to the creation of widespread Sunni educational system in the wake of revolution in Iran in 1979? This support led, indirectly, at worst, directly at best, to the establishment of the Taliban?

By: Aamir Ali

Aamir Ali — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:46:33 +0000

Your analysis is a goofy one with no solution. From where did you get the idea of “decades long support for alqaida/Taliban”? These are products of the mid 90′s. Additionally Islamists parties did well in 2002 because of 11 years of corruption and mismanagement by the mainstream parties in Pakistan between 1988 and 1999.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:06:42 +0000

Thanks! But I think western attitudes are a big problem. The government thinks it can invade and remake parts of the world it doesn’t understand, and it refuses (I use the word deliberately) to develop the requisite regional, linguistic, and cultural skills among the diplomatic, military, and intelligence agencies.

As for the Islamists. The only real case of the ones you mentioned would be Lebanon, and even then Hezbollah didn’t win a majority (or even plurality). In fact, Hezbollah’s recent actions as a spoiler have turned large swaths of the populace against them, despite the destructive war with Israel. It is of course far more complex than that, but there it is.

Palestine doesn’t count because there’s no non-Islamic choice if you’re deciding between Fatah and Hamas. And in Algeria, the Islamic parties weren’t on track to win a majority in 1992, just a large enough minority that they could have conceivably formed a majority coalition—an outcome the government wasn’t going to tolerate so it cancelled the election. Ditto Turkey: that is one big shining example of an Islamist party marginalizing itself through Parliament wins, then moderating its stance. Its recent radicalization owes as much to Europe’s racist attitudes as to its own popularity.

(The above is from memory as i’m writing on someone else’s computer, I believe I got it right.) But especially in Pakistan, the Islamists are never majority popular. Hence, giving them their vote and forcing them into the democratic process is a key way of limiting their influence: just like in Turkey.

By: jonst

jonst — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:54:12 +0000

Excellent post Joshua. The problem here is, one of them anyway, is there is a fairly steep learning curve for Westerners to grapple with when it comes to this area of the world. Me, I’ve been following this area since late 60s. So the names, political parties, and historical relationships don’t overwhelm me. Still, i have to squirm to keep up. Blogs like yours can really help with said learning curve. Thanks for the work.

As to the specific question here…..yes, I DID LOL when I read. Followed up with a bemused shake of the head. I concluded that he was writing it for no other reason than to provide the Admin with Pak talking points. Period.

One quibble with your analysis. I don’t think it is fair to say that Islamists don’t win anywhere. I think it fair to say they won in Lebanon, Algeria, back a ways, Turkey and in Palestine.