The Taliban: Yes, They Are Still Around

Libya has been the highlight of the news of late, and it is easy to forget that while it is one of many countries on the brink of history, there are other countries that are still reeling from the effects of their own history. Therefore, I would like to take the time to concentrate on a country which analysts are comparing to Libya after its own news domination one decade ago: Afghanistan.

September 11, 2001, is one of the dates about which anyone alive and able to retain memories at the time can name where they were when the heard about the towers falling. Everyone remembers the horror of hearing about the brutality, the pain of hearing about those who lost loved ones, and the swift patriotism of the aftermath. Ten years later, however, Afghanistan, the country targeted by Bush's War on Terror following the attacks, is beginning to be left out of the news, yet the Taliban is still very much a presence and a problem in the country itself.

Photo Courtesy of Wally Gobetz

The September 11, 2001, attacks

On Sunday, an article in The Boston Globe announced that the Taliban claims to have kidnapped 50 men from the Nuristan province who had just finished their training to join the police. The article states that this is part of the Taliban’s plan to intimidate and attempt to drive out anything and everyone U.S.-affiliated. While this is not the first time the Taliban has kidnapped policemen (the article reports that this has been common in other parts of the country as well), generally the group agrees to release them if they promise not to work with the Afghan government or the police. This time, however, “top Taliban military commanders in eastern Afghanistan” will decide on the policemen’s fate, but only after analyzing the situation on the ground, a move surely raising alarms.

BBC News also reported on the terrorist group’s power, noting that on March 23, the Afghan government shut off all mobile telephone networks in the Helmand province. This followed the March 22 announcement by President Hamid Karzai that Afghan forces are taking over security from the Lashkar Gah coalition. The province only has a one-percent landline penetration, meaning that shutting off telecommunications effectively cuts off all phone service. The Taliban has promised that it will blow up an cell phone towers of companies who do not comply with the ban; thus far, two masts have been burnt down. Of course, since the Taliban uses cell phones as well, this could prove counter-beneficial to the group. In particular, it often uses the mobile network to spread both anti-United States propaganda and many of the pro-Taliban songs.

A recent New York Times article went into detail about the updates regarding the war in Afghanistan. Recently, despite nominal gains earlier, the Taliban has picked up its violence, reportedly after Pakistan chastised commanders’ inadequate activity throughout the winter. The group first killed General Saidkhail, the police chief of the Kunduz province who has rather shady ties despite his ability to enforce change, followed by 30 civilians around a police compound in Imam Sahib, then over more than 36 people in a military recruiting office in Kunduz City.  Analysts are still split over what the assassinations and terrorists bombings mean in terms of progress; while the attacks undermine civilians’ confidence in the government, they also mark desperation on the part of the perpetrators.

In another rather confusing, seemingly counterproductive move, American forces are training militias to help with the fighting. Arming civilians: Ideal? Probably not. Necessary for bolstering the official troops? Most likely. The recruits are supposed to be vetted, but the government relies upon them, even putting them on its payroll, presumably making the vetting process a little more lax. If it worked for the American revolutionaries back in the 1700s, why not now? Of course, many of these militiamen used to work with the Taliban. It is surely a risky move, but who better knows the Taliban’s habits? In fact, many of these militiamen are in the same businesses as the terrorists, trafficking drugs and weapons, for example.

Photo Courtesy of davric

Afghan militiamen 

The article further reported the use of mines; unfortunately for troops, mine-locating technology still is leagues behind mine technology, evidenced by deaths and loss of limbs while searching for the weapons. Yet again, the tried-and-true is proving prevail.

The Taliban is clearly still in business. Whether it be targeted violence, followed-through threats, or hidden mines, it refuses to let go on their hold in Afghanistan. Was the United States effective in its work in the country? Surely, it was; the Times article reported that, in particular, General Saidkhail implemented countless services for his residents (increased security, the evacuation of the Taliban in man villages once controlled by the group, and improvements to the infrastructure). Yet, as we continue to look towards Libya, and as the debate about the United States’ involvement continues, this is a situation that we should probably keep in the back of our minds.

The group may not be at the forefront of American news any longer; in fact, the country’s time in the headlines became rather short-lived following Bush’s campaign against Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Still, do not let the “glamor” of the revolutions blind you from the often still-bleak conditions of the neighbors.  

Libya's Flying Woes (No Association with the TSA)

I’ll be honest, upon hearing that the United States was talking about a “no-fly zone” in Libya, I was a little bit confused. After all, what incentive can it give to Gaddafi to simply not fly? You can’t very well build a wall that high, right? What I was getting wrong was that I assumed it did not include violence or force to limit the flying. It does. 

After many, many debates, the United States did a quick turnaround and decided to back a no-fly zone, something both Senators John Kerry and John McCain have been supporting more or less from the beginning, resulting in a 10-0 vote in the United Nations Security Council to both establish said zone and to demand a cease fire. 

Photo Courtesy of  Amit Chattopadhyay

The United Nations Security Council Chamber in New York City

More recently, President Barack Obama threatened to use military aggression against Gaddafi, joining with France and Britain (the Allies are back in action, apparently). What I thought was interesting, and probably a flagrant breach of objectivity, was that in this article, which was the first news article I read about this, the reporters (Elisabeth Bumiller and David D. Kirkpatrick of The New York Times) mentioned that unlike Bush, Obama was broaching the issue as a supportive outside party, rather than an aggressive foe attempting to break into the country’s system. Of course, as always, the United States’ reputation is just one of many aspects that will be fascinating to follow as the conflict continues.

Photo Courtesy of White House (Pete Souza) / Maison Blanche (Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They, along with British Prime Minister David Cameron, are threatening military action against Libya.

The United States’ terms for withholding aggression are contingent on Gaddafi imposing a cease-fire, withdrawing his forces from where the rebels are, and stopping attacks on civilians. Incidentally, Gaddafi declared a cease-fire. Does this mean it will all be daisies and butterflies again? Not quite. French jets just fired on a target in Libya as the pro-government forces besieged the city; the cease-fire was, as expected, was a farce. Gaddafi, on his part, alleged to Obama that his people will die for him, and that he is ready to die; somehow, this does not seem to ring true, as citizens are reportedly fleeing the western side of the city, which is being shelled.

CNN is officially referring to this as a civil war. Gaddafi flagrantly lied about a cease fire. The new allies are ready to use military power. It looks like Gaddafi is going to have to try a little harder if he thinks he can pull one over on the world; they’re watching.

I’d also like to give a nod to Egypt, where the eligible citizens are voting in a referendum to approve amendments to the Constitution. Voted on as a package deal and including such provisions as term limits for the president and judicial oversight of elections, they are causing quite a stir. Some are saying that these are the perfect way to begin to institute democracy, while others are noting that this is too quick a fix, favoring those that already have some sort of background in power (such as the National Democratic Party and The Muslim Brotherhood) and not giving enough time to those who organized the protests to develop the type of party and government they want. 

Photo Courtesy of monasosh

A line of Egyptians waiting to vote on the referendum

Of the Facebook activity I have seen among the Egyptian youth, it seems that the consensus is a resounding “No.” They’ve come this far, here’s for hoping they’ll make it all the way.

Tapping at the Glass Ceilings

First off, I’d like to offer my heartfelt condolences to all those affected by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan; my thoughts are with you.

Now, I’d like to talk about women in the Arab world. Personally, when I was in Egypt, I found that women were certainly treated much differently than they are in the United State. For example, at the fairly liberal university I attended, there were two gyms: one was a coed, state-of-the-art gym in which the only women I saw were American, while the other was a women-only gym that was small, cramped, and windowless, located in the basement. While there were undoubtedly both men who respected women (the men who asked me to help them on a school project) and women who pushed the limits and made their voices heard (my professor who wore sleeveless tops and wrote inflammatory articles), there were also paternalistic men (the shopkeeper who refused to barter with me since there was a man in our group) and submissive women.

Particularly in Egypt and Tunisia, as the revolts are beginning to reach their goals, there are now questions on the status of women. So far, I have seen conflicting reports; some are noticing that this is an opportunity for women to come and take back any power they lack, while others seem to think that women may be excluded from major changes.

The Boston Globe’s article quoted Isobel Coleman, who wrote Paradise Beneath Her Feet: How Woman Are Transforming The Middle East, as cautioning women in Egypt and Tunisia to be careful, especially as there are powerful Islamist groups in both countries. Still, the article notes that the UN is working to help women; the 2009 UN Arab Human Development Report highlighted the problem, and the head of UN Women, Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile, recently stood up in support of Arab women.

A blog on Al-Jazeera’s Web site noted that there was a march in Tahrir Square, home of most of Egypt’s revolts, on International Women’s Day (March 8), though it was notably initially attended by a higher percentage of men than of women. Furthermore, many of the women there did not even realize that it was the holiday. Of the women there who were aware, however, several made surprising comments, including one named Iman, who told the blogger, Fatma Naib, that she did not think the country was ready for a female president yet; rather, women should be groomed for parliamentary seats.

Photo Courtesy of isafmedia

Women in the Kunar district of Afghanistan celebrating International Women's Day

The post noted the presence of an anti-women crowd; as disheartening as this is, I was comforted to see the no-nonsense reply of one woman to someone decrying the possibility of women in office: “Well, then, don’t vote for her.” Still, the organizers were sad that the day ended in hostility; while I certainly am sad that it was reduced to this, I suppose it is a positive sign that the climate is such that they were surprised at the hostility, rather than expecting it.

An article from Bloomberg’s Web site further opines that women in Egypt need to be careful, given that they currently are being excluded from the Constitution’s revision. The article quotes the cofounder of a campaign aiming to end women’s inequality in Iran, Sussan Tahmasebi, as saying, “Legal guarantees are absolutely critical. This is the moment Egyptian women and Egyptians really need to seize to ensure that women benefit from equal rights. Women’s rights are human rights, you cannot bargain us away.”

The article further noted that in 1957, Egypt became the first country to elect women to parliament; still, in 2005, only four women won seats, though the People’s Assembly then created 64 positions for women. It is currently not certain whether those spots will remain under the newly formed government.

Meanwhile, Agence France-Presse reported on Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Women in the World conference in New York regarding both Egypt and Tunisia. She noted both that both countries served as inspiration but that, “Unfortunately, in both countries now there is a very real danger that the rights and opportunities of women could be eroded in this transition period.” Not good.

Photo courtesy of Medill DC 

Hillary Clinton at the 2011 International Women of Courage Awards on March 8

Still, Clinton later promised support, saying “The United States will stand firmly for the proposition that women must be included in whatever process goes forward. No government can succeed if it excludes half of its people from important decisions.” This will certainly not help counter the claims that the United States and the West are behind these miscreant women (voiced at International Women’s Day march in Cairo), but this is yet another decision that the United States will have to make: involve itself or not?

Women’s rights have become less of an issue in the United States (though the glass ceiling still has yet to be broken), and it is easy to forget that it is still even a problem at all. Clinton, however, hit the nail on the head: women are half the population. It does not matter what the oppression is, but any action that tells them that they are not welcome or valuable will harm their cause, and harm the country. Given the reputation of many Muslim countries as oppressing women, from the difficulties in Afghanistan getting women into schools to reported voting bans for Saudi women, these critical turning points in the countries’ histories are crucial to instilling women’s rights as a new tradition.

Egypt and Tunisia already sparked one revolution; I think they have it in them to spark another.

Shock and Awe: The World Reacts to Libya

I think we can all say that Libya’s situation is horrendous. I think we can all say that Gaddafi is behaving absolutely savagely. I think we can all say that, given the chance, we would want to save the Libyan civilians.

So why isn’t the U.S., with the U.N. and maybe Angelina Jolie in tow, reenacting Iraq and taking down the despised ruler? 

Because of reality.

It’s become a rather sticky subject around the world. Nearly all vocal leaders are vehemently against his actions; however, even within that vague generalization, there is no black and white.  After all, there is the stray leader supporting Gaddafi and then backing away, but still remaining friends with him over in Venezuela.

Photo Courtesy of United States Federal Government

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez 

Narrowing the focus, what’s going on becomes even more problematic. Within Congress, John Kerry and John McCain, among others, are leaning towards an air strike, while other’s, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton are shying away from the idea, saying it is closer to an attack on the nation; the reluctance comes despite a promise from the U.S. administration promising that “all options are on the table,” according to The Los Angeles Times. Of course, the administration has admitted that it would consider if the U.N. Security Council gave a resolution of support for the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to impose such a zone; Russia and China (permanent members of the Security Council), as well as Turkey ( a member of NATO), vocally oppose a zone, however. 

Furthermore, while Kerry wants to develop an aid package for the countries in the area who have recently overthrown their rulers, he is being met with some opposition. There is one definite, however: The United States has plans to ferry people out of the country, sending planes to bring Egyptians back to their homeland. 

Looking abroad, it’s not much better. The United Nations, along with the U.S., leveled sanctions that froze Gaddafi’s assets in the involved countries. Now, however, Italy’s freaking out about its economy; it receives billions of dollars from Libyan contracts, and billions of dollars from investments (it relies heavily on Libya for oil and natural gas) and, as the U.S. and the E.U. freeze the assets, those funds will be gone. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor is going to investigate Khadafy, along with sons and senior aides, for crimes against humanity.

Photo Courtesy of User Hanhil from the Nederlandstalige Wikipedia

The International Criminal Court building in The Hague, The Netherlands

Will these work? Unfortunately, no one can know what the best course of action is. It’s the one giant problem with history: no matter what happens, no one can know for certain what would have happened if the U.S. hadn’t overthrown Saddam Hussein, if the U.S. hadn’t joined the Allies, if the U.S. hadn’t revolted against Britain; no one will ever know what the best answer would have been in this situation, either.

Right now, it’s all just speculation. If the U.S. gets involved, it might support the theories that the West backed the protesters from the beginning. If the U.S. doesn’t get involved, it might become a genocide (if it isn’t considered one already--that’s another unknown: the death count. According to Voice of America, The International Federation of Human Rights is currently estimating 3,000 to 6,000 deaths, a rather significant range). 

Photo Courtesy of gwydionwilliams

News coverage of the Libyan conflict

If the U.S. does get involved, we could save a lot of civilians and guide them to form a perfectly working government, or we could increase Gaddafi’s ire and cause a larger scale war and kill the chances of a quickly won peace. If the U.S. doesn’t become involved, the Libyans could rise up and defeat Gaddafi and create a government on their own with legitimacy based on the people, or Gaddafi could overcome the people and years of oppression will follow, or there could simply be a stalemate for years to come.

What doesn’t help is that, within the country, the information being circulated to each other and to the outside world is utterly and completely garbled. Sure, agencies are trying to get approximate counts on death, injuries, defected soldiers, protesters, pro-Gaddafi forces, what have you. Every time a number comes out, however, another follows that completely contradicts it. 

I don’t envy policymakers right now; this is a very, very, unbelievably difficult situation. Of course, the devil’s advocate in me wants to ask why this became more of a crisis more quickly than did, say Sudan, but I won’t go there right now.

All I can really say at this point is that, primarily, there is a whole lot of dumb luck involved. Obama and his peers may as well be at a gambling table; this is all a game of risk, and I hope, for the sake of the world at large (because, truly, there are many more people than just the Libyan citizens at stake now), that they pick the right card, choose the right door, etc.

Best of luck, Obama. I suppose the only consolation that I can offer is that, at the very least, you have a lot of other leaders who are just as panicked. Better you all than me.