Taliban without al Qaeda? Don’t bet on it

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 3:58 PM Share

If the Taliban took over Afghanistan, would al Qaeda again have a safe haven? I think so. The time to drive a wedge betwixt the two was back in 2002-2003, after the American invasion, when both groups had fled Afghanistan in disarray, and were licking their wounds and reproaching each other as they hid in Pakistani frontier villages.

That thought is provoked by an article in today's New York Times and by a series of interesting interviews with Taliban members recently carried by Newsweek. After the U.S. arrived, notes one Talibaner interviewed:

The Arabs were disappointed the Taliban hadn't stood and fought. They told me they had wanted to fight to the death. They were clearly not as distressed as the Afghans. This was understandable. The Arabs felt they had lost a battle. But the Afghans were much more devastated-they had lost a country."

The groups began rebuilding, the same Talibani recalls, by using raids and even funerals as recruiting and fund-raising tools. After one cross-border raid against an American outpost, he recalled:

We carried the stiff and bloodied bodies of our martyrs back to Wana. Thousands of locals attended their funerals. ... As the news traveled, a lot of former Taliban began returning to Wana to join us.

Another Taliban member says they benefited from American violence and the abuses of the Kabul government:

The Afghan Taliban were weak and disorganized. But slowly the situation began to change. American operations that harassed villagers, bombings that killed civilians, and Karzai's corrupt police were alienating villagers and turning them in our favor. Soon we didn't have to hide so much on our raids. We came openly. When they saw us, villagers started preparing green tea and food for us. The tables were turning. Karzai's police and officials mostly hid in their district compounds like prisoners.

As the old John Hiatt song laments, this is the way we make a broken heart. Or rather, this is the way we allowed a medieval bunch of Afghan hillbillies to re-group while we distracted ourselves with an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, someone tried to blow up the Indian Embassy in Kabul today. I wonder who doesn't like Indian influence in the Afghan capital?

SAEED KHAN/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, INDIA, TALIBAN

(17)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

ADMIRAL

5:45 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Neocon talking points

This is an old worn out talking point. It is based on fear mongering. This post has Neocon ideology all over it. Maybe you should start writing a column over at the Weekly Standard.

TOM RICKS

9:22 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Oh sure

I think the Weekly Standard would rather cease publication than carry my penultimate paragraph:

"As the old John Hiatt song laments, this is the way we make a broken heart. Or rather, this is the way we allowed a medieval bunch of Afghan hillbillies to re-group while we distracted ourselves with an unnecessary war in Iraq."

Best,
Tom

R.HOWE

5:48 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Hillbillies! You have got to

Hillbillies! You have got to be kidding!

TOM RICKS

6:55 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Oruzgan is kinda like Afghanistan's Arkansas

And nothing about the Hatfields and McCoys would surprise Afghans. (And yes I know they were down in SW West Va and that area.)

JPWREL

5:50 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Using the logic of our

Using the logic of our Afghanistan effort if we plan on making every poor, backward out of touch country in the world immune from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda type groups then we will have to reinstitute conscription because we will need permanent presence in those countries of four or five million troops.

TOM RICKS

6:05 PM ET

October 8, 2009

No, . . .

No, only those countries where the 9/11 attacks had their origin.
Best,
Tom

TYRTAIOS

7:03 PM ET

October 8, 2009

No, but . . .

With that logic Tom, we should plan operations against the UAR, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon since the Hijackers origins were from those countries, and of course Germany, where funding and planning came from. In addition, America seemed to be the training camp.

Naturally, a commander is responsible for everything his people do or fail to do, thus bin-Laden, who now billets himself in Pakistan (we think) adds that country by default to the list.

We've quite a chore ahead of us?

WALKING WOUNDED

5:41 AM ET

October 9, 2009

Egyptian politico-theologians

have put together a combo bank shot, using Saudis and Pakistanis to inaugurate global jihad agin the West, by fighting Rooshuns in Afghanistan. Give the beards credit where due. That luck was no accident.

What was it that Rambo said was his favorite weapon system?

A command that meditates 5 times daily has a distinct technological advantage over folks raised on TV and football victories. Maybe the medieval modernizers have overplayed their hand. But wait until we see who wears the smile, after the ride, in ten or 20 years.

TOM RICKS

6:06 PM ET

October 8, 2009

No, . . .

No, only those countries where the 9/11 attacks had their origin.
Best,
Tom

ADMIRAL

9:00 PM ET

October 8, 2009

More Neocon Logic

If a US citizen(s) plots a terrorist attack against a US target in Mexico, the US should invade Mexico and kill Mexicans. Ricks and his Neocon pals will grab at anything to keep America at war with the entire world forever.

HKEIRC

4:47 PM ET

October 9, 2009

Saudi Arabia

Ah when do we plan to attack. What do you mean by origin?
Best,
Keir

PCDE

6:13 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Schwachsinn

Hamburg, Germany?

PCDE

6:16 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Hypothetical

Say a lighter footprint is used in Astan which lures AQ back to the country. We would then be able to engage with them as we have a free hand in Astan and our hands are tied in Pakistan?

JPWREL

6:27 PM ET

October 8, 2009

Well, then what happens if al

Well, then what happens if al Qaeda decides they need a more diverse and dynamic global footprint and franchise out to different locals even perhaps under different brand names? As an example a significant number of the nations in Africa already are suitable grounds for expansion including the usual suspects in the Middle East and south Asia. Unlike IRA or Basque terrorists who were somewhat geographically constrained thus lacking the strategic element of space al Qaeda and like groups have about 25% of the population of the world in which it can swim.

PIBE04

7:00 PM ET

October 8, 2009

overall Afghan strategy/mission ?

These are interesting questions brought up by the commenters. What is our overall strategy and purpose for Afghanistan? Along with the President's upcoming decision, I would like to see us be able to articulate that mission better so that we all can rally behind it.

I do think a legitimate reason can be stated from the perspective of already being there. The U.S. would truly be leaving a nation behind and from a foreign policy standpoint that could have very bad implications.

www.hooahnews.com

GRANT

3:30 AM ET

October 9, 2009

It is of course probable that

It is of course probable that Al Quaeda will use a resurrection of Taliban power to reinstate their camps and recruitment in Afghanistan, but do not assume that this is the only place they will be. Al Quaeda seems to attempting to spread further out across Asia and Africa as well. I am not saying that it is not worth it to deny Al Quaeda Afghanistan, simply that we should also remember Nigeria and the Philippines as well in our thinking.
As for the matter of the bombing, it is very possible Pakistani ISI and military were involved. However, it is equally possible that it was an operation solely conducted by the Taliban or Al Quaeda. Much like Bhutto's assassination there are many people who would have done it, and deciding it was one group or another too quickly will blind you*.

*That mistake led an administration into a relatively pointless war not too long ago...

ADMIRAL

10:01 PM ET

October 8, 2009

""serious foreign policy" dittoheads"

"This persistent lie about Al Qaeda's aims in the region underpins the entire case for escalation, just the way the domino theory underpinned consistent troop buildup in Vietnam. And yet nobody in the media, up to and including Chris Matthews today, has bothered to challenge this basic falsehood. Nobody has asked the question, "If Al Qaeda is so desperate to find a safe haven, why haven't they returned to Afghanistan now, when the Taliban controls large swaths of the country?" It's not like they aren't under as much threat from drone attacks in Pakistan as they would be in Afghanistan.

There are also the points to be made, that the Taliban was ejected from the country the last time they gave Al Qaeda safe harbor and wouldn't appear likely to do so again, and that this Taliban is a home-grown movement with little influence from foreign fighters, and that the whole idea of "safe havens" in a world where terror attacks have been planned from inside Spain, Germany, Britain and even the United States is a false one. But accepting this argument on its own terms, and putting aside these points, it's still undermined by the facts.

Will anyone present these basic facts to the "serious foreign policy" dittoheads when they go on and on with a demonstrably false argument about safe havens and how we must send as many troops as possible into danger or we'll all be killed in our beds?"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/as-sure-as-god-made-little-green-apples.html