September 22, 2009 11:07 AM

Afghanistan Is Not Iraq

By
CBSNews
(Weekly Standard)  This story was written by Stephen Schwartz.


Many of the initiatives by President Obama in the Middle East and Muslim countries rest on unrealistic expectations--desert mirages, one might say--surrounding the motives of terrorists and other enemies of freedom. The most obvious example has been Obama's flattery toward the Iranian dictatorship, expressed in his address to the authorities of the "Islamic Republic" on March 20, in which he offers friendship to the Iranian clerical tyrants while they torture dissenting intellectuals, and repress protesting students and spiritual Sufis.

On its face, this immoral option resembles the old "realism" toward China--and, lately, Putinite Russia--that puts "stability" in relations with authoritarians and mass murderers ahead of democratic principles. Let the Tibetans and Uighurs be subjected to cultural genocide, Falun Gong be brutally persecuted, and individual Chinese dissidents--some of the bravest of the brave--be tormented in horrific ways, the argument seems to go, as long as Washington can claim a "breakthrough" in relations. But other, and much more dangerous tendencies, are also evident in recent U.S. outreach to the Muslim world. To flirtation with Tehran, the attempted installation of Chas Freeman, a prime apologist for Saudi Wahhabism, as head of the National Intelligence Council, and the hallucinated concept of a "unity" government comprising the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, critical observers of American official initiatives toward Muslim countries may add a new gimmick: the search for "the moderate Taliban."

This latest delusion is often promoted by the State Department's Richard Holbrooke. Afghanistan, we are told, may become the scene of a "civilian surge" comparable to the strategy that diminished terrorism in Iraq. The "moderate Taliban" could furnish the Afghan equivalent of the Sunni Awakening, which provided allies for the U.S.-led coalition and the Baghdad government in fighting the so-called Iraqi insurgency.

But the differences between the Iraqi death squads that eventually split and produced partners for the battle against brutalization, and the Taliban, are unarguable.

* The Iraqi malcontents comprised an assortment of the disaffected--secular Baathists, Sunnis suddenly deprived of long-held privilege and power, simple religious bigots (rather than committed doctrinal fanatics, and there is a difference), and, to be honest, Iraqis who merely resented the 2003 intervention. Notwithstanding Beltway blather denying its existence--some emitted by now vice-president Biden--an Iraqi national identity, however limited, exists.

* The Sunni Awakening was encouraged when the Iraqis found their alleged "resistance" increasingly dominated by Saudi Wahhabis who had come over the long Saudi-Iraqi border in the "second Iraq intervention," as detailed here, here, and here. When "Al Qaeda in Iraq" manifested its Taliban characteristics--executing women caught without covered faces, possessors of music CDs, Sufis, and others they deemed apostates--the anti-coalition combatants perceived that the United States and Baghdad authorities were a preferable alternative to governance by lynching.

Wide as the horizons of their global ambition doubtless were, and dedicated as they were to using Iraq as a platform for reinforcement of Wahhabism in their own country, the Saudi radicals who streamed north were primarily interested in striking at the coalition, to stimulate new support for their perverse cause, and did not aim at immediate expansion into Jordan or Kuwait.

By contrast, the Taliban is not a mélange. They include no secular types comparable to the Baathists and few "Afghan patriots." Afghan national identity is much weaker than that found even in Iraq. The Pashtun base of the Taliban is tribal, but they have a lesser presence in local history than the Iraqi Sunnis that usurped power in Mesopotamia. The Taliban embody monolithic radicalism in the Wahhabi style, rooted in the Deobandi school of fundamentalism, and consider all Muslims who fail to share their ideology to be unbelievers deserving liquidation. The Iraqi Arab Sunnis, even at the height of their influence under Saddam, could not wipe out the Iraqi Shias or the Kurds, but the Taliban massacred the indigenous Hazara Shias in Afghanistan, effecting a nearly-successful genocide.

Further, the Taliban have demonstrated that their current goal, rather than mere power in Afghanistan, is the "Talibanization" of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed failing state. This would provide the running dogs of al Qaeda with unconcealed weapons of mass destruction as well as millions of fresh foot-soldiers in an environment that, along with its large and problematical diaspora in Britain, has become the main breeding ground of Islamist extremism worldwide.

Where, then, are the "moderate" Taliban? The Taliban themselves, and their Pakistani promoters, scorned news reports about the Obama conception of a "civil surge," in Urdu and Pashto comments translated and posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute. History affirms that there were moderate Italian fascists but no moderate German Nazis; moderate socialist labor radicals but no moderate Stalinists. Moderate Taliban, like "moderate Nazis" or "moderate Stalinists," are a fantasy. The only and unavoidable response to such extremists is to defeat them.

The Obama administration seems to have fallen back into American thinking about the Muslim world before the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Like Bill Clinton and his cohort, they see Islamist violence as an expression of protest against Western policies rather than as a manifestation of a very real and threatening phenomenon called radical Islam. To the new president, neither Ahmadinejad, nor Hamas, nor the Taliban represent an ideological movement capable of wholesale bloodshed and long-term atrocities. This misapprehension defies the knowledge shared by every ordinary Muslim in the world. Rather than a step toward a new and more benevolent relationship, propagating the myth of the "moderate Taliban" is a leap backward in American understanding. But the American way has always put freedom before peace, and Afghanistan should offer no exception to this rule.

The Afghan war cannot be won by trying to factionalize an ideological hard core or, as President Obama has lately suggested, by recruiting malcontents and deserters. Victory must be clear and be seen to be clear.

Stephen Schwartz is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard
By Stephen Schwartz
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard

Weekly Standard
Add a Comment
by noloyalisti April 6, 2009 4:27 PM EDT
Silly Willy, our Republican Neo Con gov't LET them bomb the towers. Anything for political gain.

Afghanistan is different than Iraq because there we are killing Afghani women and children instead of Iraqi women and children. Just like in Palestine we are killing Palestinian women and children by financing Israel to do it. Stop ALL the occupations and murder by the US.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 April 2, 2009 4:38 PM EDT
Al Qaeda was there because they had no where else to go and they gave the Taliban money. If the Taliban get stronger, there WILL be a base for radical Islam to regroup and take on more control. The terrorism that Al Qaeda wants will succeed in a bargain made with the Taliban.
Reply to this comment
by superdem1 April 2, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
Everything being said about the Taliban was also said about the Vietnamese Communists, and communists in general, but after the North Vietnamese victory over the South, what happened ? They consolidated power and ran their state the way they sought fit. Americans can now take vacations in Viet Nam. We cannot make these people see the world the way we see it - but if we leave them alone and let them live the way they want to, their hatred of our interventions will eventualy cool. We keep lambasting them and analyzing them and categorizing them - but we are thousands of miles from home in their lands, and they are killing us. What right do we have to restructure their civilizations ? We are aliens and invaders, and they want to kill us. It is very natural, to me. Nowhere in this article is the real reason we are over there - Israel. What would we care about any of these parties, if it weren't for their hatred for Israel ?
Reply to this comment
by ramos1129 April 2, 2009 4:20 AM EDT
A well thought out intelligent article. But some truths still remain: (1) the Afrans people do not want us there, (2) the Afrans government is corrupt and would not survive without us, (3) we had our only chance in 2001 when we had the Afrans Northern Alliance on our side. They are essentially gone now. (4) every day we remain, this war is more and more Obama's War. Any other major initiative has to come after this war.

Recommendation: Let's get out now. We can use our considerable intel capabilities to locate where OBL is and then take out the jerk.
Reply to this comment
by idlepugilist April 1, 2009 11:47 PM EDT
Sadly, the Weekly Standard continues its tired quest to be FOX news, even FOX radio, but fails in its initial paragraph to make a point. "...friendship to the Iranian clerical tyrants while they torture dissenting intellectuals, and repress protesting students and spiritual Sufis."
And we want to continue the ways of George W. Bush why? Torture and repression were key words of the Bush Doctrine. Because his methods have led to such auspicious successes as the never ending Iraq War, and strained diplomatic ties with nearly everyone until Obama (put ANY name in Obama's place if you wish) took over.
One part is correct: Afghanistan is not Iraq. And until the author comes up with an idea about how to gel the many and different factions within the country, he can just as well shut up along with the rest of us. The country needs another quick fix, then a retreat, because until the Afghans want to work together like AMERICANS do, the Taliban or other funded faction will continuously resurrect themselves.
Reply to this comment
by mattgersz April 1, 2009 6:19 PM EDT
No, Afghanistan is not Iraq. And thank God that President Obama is not George Bush.

It takes real arrogance for The Weekly Standard, unofficial publication of the Bush Iraq war party, to tell America how to correctly fight a war or conduct a cogent Middle Eastern policy.

Schwartz did have one thing right--just take the first half of his lead sentence and substitute "Bush" for "Obama.": Hence:

"Many of the initiatives by President Bush in the Middle East and Muslim countries rest on unrealistic expectations." Yes, they did. And the Weekly Standard still persists in foisting its unreality upon us.

Matt Gerszewski,
Minot, ND
Reply to this comment
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook