How Dangerous Are the Taliban?

John Muller lays out lucid, irrefutable common sense. He opens a window allowing a breeze to stir the stale fear that mustn’t be disturbed.

The only real Taliban terror that President Obama faces is having no mission depot for tens of thousands of US troops and their Rhode Island sized support complex upon exiting Baghdad. Retreating the US footprint from a world defined as permanent threat to the homeland sets Mr. Obama up for opprobrium.

Dr. Muller can bare a gallant chest and be heralded the brave man he is indeed. The heads of potential terror victims at Mall Of America won’t hang around his neck. Obama needs but pull one toe from the anti-terrorism pool, an attack occur, one life lost, and the scarlet letter of ineptitude leaves him a political cripple. That sort of brave is dangerous. Moving the pieces on the chess board is change enough – sufficient for the American public.

In a related article, Dr. Muller points out that the terror industrial complex convinces the homeland that we were and are one nutcase away from wreckage and ruin. The security edifice needs keep the population convinced the US is built upon kindling, and open cans of kerosene teeter on every lintel and cross street waiting to be spilled by stealth terror cells. He notes that as many sleeper cells have been discovered since 9/11 as terror attacks committed. And what does it take to commit terrorism but a guy on a moonless night, lighter fluid, match and Central Park. Is he wrong? It doesn’t matter.

Americans having fully assimilated the terrorist threat narrative, the president needn’t make over the top statements such as Mr. Obama made concerning the Taliban in Afghanistan threat. Colossal in calculation, the statement confirms who is giving instructions to whom in Washington and what the war on terror and homeland security are really protecting.

Luis de Agustin

i agree with the professor's comments that politicians have always used the threat from the exterior to frighten and manipulate people with the goal of getting elected. i am old enough to remember hiding under school desks for bomb
exercises in elementary school; grew up with the red threat after wwII; and all these basically overexaggerated fears begin to sound remarkably similiar; some foreigners are going to come over here, assimilate and take us over like in some bad science fiction movie"the pea pod people".
I cannot see how the taliban monsters would want to come over here from their mountain caves, rent expensive apartment and than conducts jihad in times square. all they want to do is grow long beards; marry multiple child brides who cannot go to school, drive cars and be totally subservient to them; they want to start schools where kids are only taught to memorize the koran. they want to have sharia in their own villages, not go abroad and convert us; this is not nice and is not democratic but it does nor justify sending our finest young men over there to kill them; somehow pakistan is eventally going to have handle this internally; this government has got to stop jumping into every crisis, do a half assed job and leave convinced that the job cannot be done as quickly as our modern can do attitude suggests. in fact it is very arrogant to believe we can alter a culture just though the sheer excercise of force';; sometimes societies themselves must undergo internal change from within and that will take time and education.

Two key questions confront us relative to our forces' continued presence in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region:(1) Are we still committed to cutting off the head of the snake, al Qaeda, as our reason for being there? (2) Does that objective outweigh our certain costs in blood, treasure, and international relationships with all of the actors there? Those costs include intercultural as well as political and economic acceptance in a region of strategic importance to us. Finally, the humanitarian issue of the Taliban's growing malign influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be callously ignored. Are we really willing to desert a situation we have done much to create?

This is disgracefully ignorant journalism. The author clearly knows nothing about Afghanistan or Pakistan, other than a couple of books or articles he read that confirm his already-formed opinion that we need to disengage from the region.

Pakistan has 100+ nuclear weapons, is the home of al-Qaeda, and is inching towards collapse at the hands of the Taliban.
Contrary to his assertion, all signs point to a very symbiotic relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda, to the point of al-Qaeda fighters serving as the vanguard for recent Taliban offensives.

And this guy is telling us that it's ok because there are only a few hundred al-Qaeda fighters in the region? First, this neglects the tens of thousands of members of the Pakistani Taliban -which is relevant, considering Baitullah Mehsud's recent threats to Washington D.C.

And even so, does he not realize that 9/11 was carried out by NINETEEN men at four separate locations?

The potential for a confluence of nuclear weapons, terrorists, and a failed state makes the threat in "AfPak" much more significant than the threats from Iran and North Korea. This demands greater engagement, not less.

The ignorance in this essay represents very poor scholarship that I'd expect out of a college freshman - the fact that it comes with the credibility attached to a professor from a prestigious university means that this ignorance is extremely dangerous..

Psychology thoughts is substitue to political thoughts : maybe it's a joke ?... How can be sure than Taliban were "reluctant" with Al Kaida or "feel betrayed" ? The Taliban are "students"to rebuild the "truth" islam, they are not traditional muslims fighting foreigners as usual. Taliban had destroyed the Bouddha statues remember ! they want the same things than Al Keida but perhaps they didn't want stroke USA yet, maybe not before grip Pakistan too.

The author goes worse if he thought than we have just two way : kiss or kill... he chooses to kiss their feet and before just kill was the single way ; maybe a third way is possible : shake the hand if we can be agreed with a mutual agrement. How ? It's an other story and try to write this in an article I'll propose soon.

Lyon, France

lucien.oulahbib@free.fr

How Dangerous are Uninformed "Experts"?

First, one must consider to WHOM the Taliban are dangerous and how immediate the danger if any.
If we are limiting our consideration to the danger of missile attacks on US soil in the near future, we can miss the danger that is more immediate to other countries like Pakistan, as well as longer term danger to the US. As has been pointed out in a previous comment, the fall of nuclear-armed Pakistan, which has already ceded control of the Swat Valley to the Taliban, and is anxiously trying to appease Taliban sympathizers within Pakistan including those in the military and intelligence services, would dramatically increase the danger to the US and to those who might be the next targets of aggression, aggression fortified with more resources and which would demand our involvement in combatting. The issue of Kashmir would likely spark more confrontation with India ...with a Talibanized Pakistan less open to compromise. We would also underestimate the impact on bordering countries, including their internal stability and on the continueing use being made of Afghanistan by foreign militants and the flow of opium/heroin out and narcodollars in which would fund the export of oppressive and fanatical ideology.
Do we consider the Taliban not dangerous if they merely engage in barbaric and ruthless slaughter and oppression of innocents within their own territory? Do we assume political negotiation would in any way stop the flow of terrified refugees into Pakistan, the destruction of civilized society and the educational systems that offered alternatives to the madrassas that turn out the cannon fodder for Islamic terrorists ?
Ask the suffering women of Afghanistan whose basic rights are trivialized and the first chip to give away to appease the Taliban government and secure wavering conservative support for Karzai..! Ask those young children whose schools were burned down, and teachers killed about whether the Taliban are dangerous? Ask whether the US can afford to desert Afghanistan AGAIN and abandon this tortured country's populace to the horrors that destroyed the lives of so many and made it fertile field for terrorists..both homegrown and trained and those terrorist extremists "guests".
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. The US helped arm the mujahadeen to expel the soviets and then left, only returning after 9-11. Should we again rationalize pulling out and ignoring our responsibility for contributing to the chaos, we will eventually reap the results.

We cannot exert moral leadership without accepting the moral obligations of the US to this country's people, most of whom are hostage to violence, poverty and the trauma of repeatedly dashed hopes for peace and normalcy. The lesson drawn for the world if we again abandon it to chaos and fanaticism will be terrible one..and dangerous to us...

The current news from Pakistan puts the degree of danger represented by the Taliban in a different perspective. The weak opposition of the Pakistan army to their takeover of the Swat valley region may mean that this movement may extend its effective rule over a much larger area than previously thought possible. The tactics are violently cruel and intimidating, including public beheadings, beatings and coercion of women, and general intimidation of a population which very probably does not welcome the Taliban's domination. Should the U.S. be concerned? Of course! This medievalist cult has restored itself in Afghanistan and is proving itself increasingly powerful in Pakistan. Coalition troops are seriously hampered by their presence, and both the Afghan and Pakistan governments are weakened by their seizure of power. Al Qaeda is happy to use them for expedient protection. The Taliban effectively blocks us from our every objective in the region. They present another face of "war by other means."

The appearance of this article in as esteemed and influential a publication as Foreign Affairs is utterly frightening. While it is valid to pose the question of "What are we doing in Afghanistan?" -- which apparently the author set out to do -- he so blurs and entirely misses the real issues at hand that this essay disqualifies itself from any meaningful discussion about our involvement there.

Professor Mueller alarmingly understates the dangers posed by the Taliban as well as its close linkage with al-Qaeda, druglords and Pakistan's military intelligence agency, the ISI.

Osama bin Laden was tossing beau coup bucks at the Taliban; they not only welcomed him, he was part of the clan since the Taliban's Mullah Omar is reportedly married to Osama's daughter. The ISI's business relationship -- ie heroin -- with both of these groups (with whom they are also ideologically linked) explains why Pakistan's military has been so pathetic in routing them out.

AND as nchun pointed out, this essay entirely misses the alarming territorial takeover by the Taliban in nuclear Pakistan, where they are destabilizing the government.

Last week, while researching my upcoming book, What Every American Should Know about South Asia: Poppies, Power and Organized Crime, I interviewed Fatima Bhutto (political writer and niece of Benazir) who said she was shocked at how quickly the government was going down, and how Karachi citizens are in a self-imposed lockdown, since suicide bombers self-explode daily and President Zardari keeps handing over more land and making more deals with the Taliban.

The dangers of a Taliban takeover aren't merely to Pakistanis (most of whom don't want Taliban rule). And it's not solely the risk of "loose nukes" falling into the hands of "mad mullahs" -- although that's certainly something to be gravely concerned about.

Just as problematic, however, is what's going to unfold if the Taliban edges much closer to Islamabad and looks like they may indeed nab the nukes. (Bhutto noted she's already worried that the weapons are in the hands of two convicted criminals -- namely, Pakistan's president and prime minister.)

Ordinarily, one would expect Pakistan's Army to move in -- but the army (like its intelligence arm, the ISI) is co-opted by its extracurricular activity, heroin production (which the Taliban taxes and helps oversee) and it's fractured, with some high-ranking officers wanting a more Islamist government.

If the army doesn't get on it fast, however, the US may well move in, with more than Predator drones. As reported by David Sanger in the New York Times Magazine recently, the Pentagon is already plotting strategies to swoop down and nab those nukes should the Taliban get close, but alas, the Pentagon doesn't know all of their locations.

And you can be sure that India -- with or without the US -- is planning the same. Either or both actions would only unleash more chaos, but either or both action may be required.

What's more, as Samuel W. points out, this article misses the root problem in both Af and Pak and our confusing involvement there: heroin -- and not just the poppy, but its manufacture, and who's trafficking it.

We need to reframe the AfPak problem in terms of drugs -- which high ranking members in both the governments of Afghanistan AND Pakistan are very much involved in. And we need to start wondering if other governments are involved in that racket too.

And finally, the US needs to demand accounting of every penny, and in fact should reconsider tossing billions around to corrupt governments. Those bucks aren't stopping where they should: they are filling the pockets of druglords, schemers and guerrillas, who have us in their sights.

-- Melissa Rossi
www.whateveryamericanshouldknow.com

Sure the 11/9 attacks brought the islamist regime to the downfall but Mr Mueller omit that before the Al Qaeda attack, trough the Arabia Saudi (princeps Turki Al Faisal met the Mullah Omar ) and directly USA asked the Talibans to deliver to them Osama bin Laden without any results ( Rashid; Coll ). Also after the 11/9 the Talibans provide to Osama collaboration and shelters for go into hiding and they enjoining the help of many fighters before under the control of Al Qaeda, in what we can call de facto the military fusion of the two armys ( look to the human and cars bombs that the taliban use, something that they didnt do during the 1992 1996 civil war; look the case of the indian fly hijacked by jaish e mohammed in 1999 and landed in kandahar, that explain how bin laden was a mediator for built ties between the taliban and pakistani militants ).So Talibans knew what they hendled giving help to bin Laden. Mr Mueller didnt say that the religious loyalty to a muslim brother for the Mullah Omar was and will be more important than a political advantage: coming back to the power a taliban regime can continue to provide a safe heaven to Al Qaeda in virtue of their common religious background.

Is not true that the head of al Qaeda in Afghanistan hadn't control on the terrorist movements. The attackers of 9/11 and London (2005) flayed ( most of them ) to Pakistan before carry their missions. In Afghanistan they attended some training camps very important sure psychologically and maybe effectively ( Abdel Bari Atwan ). The fact that now the presence of Al Qaeda militants is not numerous in Pakistan/Afghanistan is charge with the fusion of them with some pakistani militias ( not only with TTP ) and for the campaign that they are facing in Iraq. So this could mean that whether the taliban will have the control of Afghanistan Al Qaeda can reorganize their camps and welcoming some fighters now in Iraq and nurturing a new generation of terrorist in a safe place. Sure bring the terror from Afghanistan in western country will be difficult for al Qaeda, now and in the future but what the 9/11 taught to us is to don't underestimate the threats especially thinking that the successful conclusion of the objectives of this type of terrorist organization coincide, in their ideology, with the will of God, allowing them to think according to long term strategy.

sorry for my english, cordially

Marco

The ideology of Al-Qaeda does not need a base in Af-Pak but the training of recruits does. There is no credible evidence that the Taliban felt betrayed by Al-Qaeda's attacks in the US. Had they truly felt so, they would have let UBL be found.

This article is dripping with naivete and completely devoid of logic

This is my understanding of the situation:
1- Who are the Taliban?
Taliban are an Afghan and Pakistani obscurantist movement who follow Wahhabi Islam. It is interesting to note that USA had a hand in the creation of Taliban! In fact Taliban were created by USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan after the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 by the Soviet Union. Each of these three countries had its own purpose in the creation of Taliban: USA wanted to use Islam to defeat USSR and to create an 'Islamic' movement hostile to Iran and its revolution; Pakistan wanted to control Afghanistan through Taliban and use them also in Kashmir and elsewhere; Saudis wanted to propagate Wahhabism so as to counter Iranian influence and assume leadership of the Islamic world. This alliance created and promoted Taliban and Wahhabism (there were other resistance movements in Afghanistan fighting USSR who were not Taliban/Wahhabi).
So with the help of US weapons (especially deadly Stinger missiles), Pakistani military bases and Saudi money and propaganda, USSR was defeated and Taliban overran other resistance movements and came to power in Afghanistan. The only countries who recognized Taliban regime in Afghanistan were: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The cozy relation between Western countries and Taliban continued almost until horrible 9/11 terrorist acts happened.

2-What is Wahhabism?
Wahhabism is the most obscurantist and medieval interpretation of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. They are againt any progress whatsoever (such as schools for girls) because they consider them deviation from 'pure' Islam. This strand of Islam is being promoted and propagated all over the world (including among Muslims in Western countries) by Saudi Arabia. Here again the game is to counter Iran. Western countries have not seen Wahhabism as a mortal threat but as a useful tool against Iranian/Shiite influence. Only now the West is seeing the catastrophic results of this strategic blunder. The most important danger to the Islamic and middle eastern countries (including Israel) and the whole world is Wahhabism that is promoted by Saudi Arabian princes and their money. Wahhabism is creating terrorist minded ignorant 'Muslims'. If Talibans are not stopped in AfPak, this will result in Talibanisation of Muslims in most of Arab countries and in London, New York etc. This is a real menace.

3- What is Iran?
Iranian history shows that Iran, for the past two hundred years, has always been a force for progress. Its interpretation of Islam is compatible with democratic values and modern life. Also Iran is a key country in the Middle East and a force for stability and can help the West. But for 30 years, West has made coalition with the countries who promote obscurantism. They have helped Wahhabism against the stabilizing forces in the region.
Every day there are columnists, writers, politicians, think tanks etc.. in USA who under the influence of Saudi money and others continue to promote the continuation of the hostile US policy towards Iran. I am afraid they will reap what they seed when the whole Arab world Muslims will resemble Taliban. It is time that West abandons its wrong policies of hostility and demonization towards Iran and stop supporting the idealogues of Taliban. Iran can help. I recommend to all and especially to Western political leaders to read the excellent book "Iran , Empire of the Mind" By Michael Axworthy to understand Iran and what it represents and can do.

Anyone who knows, and knows that he knows, Makes the stead of intelligence leap over the vaults of heaven;
Anyone who does not know, but knows that he does not know, Can bring his lame little donkey to the destination nonetheless;
Anyone who does not know, and does not know that he does not know, Is stuck for ever in double ignorance.
Poem by Nasir-od-Din Tusi(1201-1274)
From the above mentioned book.

Professor Mueller displays a frightening degree of wishful thinking and ignorance of history. His assertion that the Taliban was a reluctant host to Al Queda is a judgement that is unsupported. Al Queda and Ossama Bin Ladin (The tall Saudi, the Sheikh) provided significant amounts of money and Wahabbi Arab fighters in support of the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance, and Bin Ladin engineered the assassination of Massoud, which crippled the Northern Alliance, allowing the Taliban to seize control of the whole of Afghanistan. The Taliban provided sanctuary for Al Queda to establish training bases, without which their organization would fragment and dwindle.
Rest assured that Al Queda is providing similar financial and military support for the current Taliban struggle to regain control of part or all of Afghanistan, and rest assured that they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
His statement that a safe haven is not needed for planning operations is true. But he misses the point that a safe haven is required to establish effective training establishments.
He makes much of the apparent weakness and ineffectiveness of Al Queda, but doesn't acknowledge a key point. The weakness and ineffectiveness against the U.S is, to an extent we may never know, the direct result of security measures taken by the U.S. government. How many AL Queda operations have been thwarted by the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security may never be known. Security agencies don't brag about their successes as this would divulge their methods of operation and jeopardize future cases.

To expect the "powers of evil" to repeat an attack like 9/11 is to expect those people to act like the U.S.. But they are different. A repetition would make their "piece of art" (Stockhausen) weak. Compared to them the U.S. are the real barbars.

To ask whether the Taliban are worth the money of war is a pure U.S. problem. The Taliban have been the gouvernement of Afghanistan before the war and will be the gouvernement after the war. Afghanistan is bleeding and the Taliban cant change it until the U.S. taxpayer stops to pay for it.

The U.S. and its partners could try to greet the Afghans with a similar symbolic act that every Afghan would understand. It would be visible for centuries and be a strong link between Afghanistan and the world. They could offer to give the Taliban an Afghan railway. See Europe in the 19th century, how railways and nationbuilding went together.

It would mean to give Afghanistan back to the Taliban because nobody can build a railway against their will and nobody can secure the work except the Taliban. And it would be a nice exit gesture. The U.S. and the Taliban could become friends.

The Taliban and al Qaeda may not pose enough of a threat to the United States to make a long war in Afghanistan worth the costs.

The Taliban and al Qaeda no longer pose a threat to the United States, but the US must respond to 9/11. The cost of not focusing on these minor elements would only hurt the US in the long run, and cost us more. The dismal behavior of the last US President has prolonged the war already, the present administration has shifted the focus and these efforts will end the threat to instability in the region. If done correctly a Marshall plan for the region will make this region a new Allie for the US. We can not ignore crippled states ever again

for america or american analysts, to look at the problem afflicting afpak with purely american angle is a sublime treachery. not only that the article lack basic understanding of the desease, it is also a way to keep the devil or a part of devil in deep freezer to get it resurrected as and when needed. the whole world knows and this is already mentioned in so many comments on this article as well that america created this bhashmasur with the collaboration of pakistan and saudi arabia to defeat russia. and when the goal was achieved, they left the region without even once looking back. pakistan had trained militia at it's disposal ready to be used against india. that time it might rightly not have thought one day it would be thrown off the back of the beast it was riding.
just as i am writing this comment i have read an article in the indian express that says american experts think america is not doing enough to liquidate Let. if Let survives, world will be in more dangerous situation in near future even if america and pakistan get rid of taleban