Taliban in Swat

[citizen k]

And so another symbol of South Asian cosmopolitanism from a bygone era falls to the fundies.

Taliban in Pakistani ex-resort: `Welcome, Osama!'
By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press                                                                

MINGORA, Pakistan –Pakistan was trying to end bloodshed when it let the idyllic Swat Valley fall under Islamic law last week. Instead, it has emboldened the Taliban and prompted an invitation — however improbable — for Osama bin Laden.
The local spokesman for the Taliban, which control the valley, told The Associated Press he'd welcome militants bent on battling U.S. troops and their Arab allies if they want to settle there.
"Osama can come here. Sure, like a brother they can stay anywhere they want," Muslim Khan said in a two-hour interview Friday, his first with a foreign journalist since Islamic law was imposed. "Yes, we will help them and protect them."
Khan spoke in halting English he learned during four years painting houses in the U.S. before returning to Swat in 2002. He averted his eyes as he spoke to a female journalist, in line with his strict understanding of Islam.
Pakistan reacted with alarm to his comments, saying it would never let him shelter the likes of bin Laden.
"We would have to go for the military operation. We would have to apply force again," said Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira. "We simply condemn this. We are fighting this war against al-Qaida and the Taliban."
But it is far from clear that the government has the means to do much of anything in the Swat Valley. It agreed to Islamic law in the region — drawing international condemnation — after trying and failing to defeat the Taliban in fighting marked by brutal beheadings that killed more than 850 people over two years.
"We lost the war. We negotiated from a position of weakness," said Afrasiab Khattak, a leader of the Awami National Party, which governs the province that includes Swat. He said the region's police force is too underpaid, undertrained and underequipped to take on the militants.
At the behest of the National Assembly, President Asif Ali Zardari last week signed off on a regulation establishing Islamic law throughout the Malakand Division, a strategic territory bordering Afghanistan, and Pakistan's tribal belt where bin Laden has long been rumored to be hiding. The Swat Valley, where tourists once flocked to enjoy Alpine-like scenery, is part of the area.
Whether Swat someday proves an alluring haven for bin Laden could depend on how threatened he feels in his current location, and how successful the Taliban militants are in keeping state forces at bay there.
U.S. officials said they would work with Pakistan to make sure militants aren't safe anywhere.
"With regard to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, this is not a place where they should be welcome. We believe ... that violent extremists need to be confronted," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Monday.
In an interview with Pakistan's Geo TV, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was asked about U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke's concerns over the Swat deal.
"He doesn't need to worry about that," Gilani said. "This is our country. We know the ground realities better than he does. We will continue supporting this deal if peace comes there. I'm seeing peace is coming there."
On Friday, Taliban fighters in pickup trucks with black flags rumbled through the rutted streets of the valley's main city of Mingora, demanding over loudspeakers that shops shutter their windows and prepare for prayers.
In the city center, a district police station lay in ruins, destroyed by a suicide bomber. The only music blaring praised the Taliban and extolled the young to fight holy war.
Aftab Alam, president of the district court lawyers, took a journalist through an open courtyard and closed the door to his office before whispering in a soft, angry voice about the Taliban.
"They are more than beasts. Our government is impotent, stupid and corrupt. We are helpless (facing) this militancy," he said, calling the Taliban "barbaric" and "illiterate."
Alam said he feared for his life, "but I dare to speak because I am worried about my nation, my religion, my home."
The Swat deal comes as Pakistan's hodgepodge of militant groups appear to be growing increasingly integrated and coordinated.
The Taliban spokesman counted among his allies several groups on U.N. and U.S. terrorist lists: Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for last year's bloody siege in Mumbai, India; Jaish-e-Mohammed, which trains fighters in Pakistan's populous Punjab province; the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; al-Qaida, and the Taliban of Afghanistan.
"If we need, we can call them and if they need, they can call us," Khan said.
He said his forces would go to help the Taliban in Afghanistan if the United States and NATO continue to fight there.
"You must tell (the Americans) if they want peace ... to withdraw their forces, keep them on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean," he said.
Khattak, the provincial politician, described the implementation of Islamic law as replacing traditional judges with qazis, special judges trained in Islamic law. Already, a handful of qazis have begun hearing minor cases. The deal's broker, fundamentalist cleric Sufi Mohammed, has said no regular courts will be allowed in the region.
But Khan said the Taliban envisions an even a broader system: a whole new set of laws following a strict interpretation of Islam, akin to the system Afghanistan's Taliban imposed during their 1996-2001 rule. There, the government banned music and television, restricted girls' education and women's movement and cut off limbs and stoned women to death in public ceremonies.
"We don't need just qazis. We have to change the laws," Khan said.
He said his group wants to expand Islamic law, also known as Shariah, into all of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
"You will see the National Assembly will follow after one year, two years, six months," he said. "I don't know, but they will have to pass Shariah for all of Pakistan."
Already, Taliban fighters have moved unhindered into nearby Buner district — also part of Malakand Division — declaring themselves to be the enforcers of Islamic law and threatening tribesmen.
"It used to be that you crossed the Malakand Pass to Swat and you thought, 'I am in heaven,'" said Alam, the lawyer. "Now you think, 'I am in Hell.'"

The Prime Minister seems especially delusional. The only peace this agreement will bring is the peace of death.

[Martinus]

I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.

Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.

[Eochaid]

I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.

How many Moslem truly fundamentalist countries are there in the world?

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAEs, Yemen (North & South).

Not exactly a tidal wave. Most countries are doing s bit of soul-searching but I'd hardly call it catastrophic.

Besides, Huntington might have written "Clash of Civilizations" but he never managed to explain what a civilization is.

Kevin

[Sheilbh]

Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.

Much of these Islamists are part of a legacy of the armed forces and intelligence services in Pakistan supporting Islamists in Afghanistan.  They did it for over 20 years because it was a way of increasing Pakistani influence.  The Taliban were basically supported by Pakistan and the Northern Alliance by Iran (which is why, in 2001, though Pakistan was our useful ally it was through the Iranian government that we began to talk with the Northern Alliance).

Now given that the problem was, for much of the 90s and for most of Musharaf's reign, how to get rid of the Islamic radicalisation of the armed forces and intelligence services in Pakistan it seems preposterous that we expected a man whose only constituency, whose only support and whose sole legitimacy came from the armed forces would be able to confront them.  The problem here isn't a one-off.  Musharaf's a pro-West dictator from the military, what happens when we face Zia al-Haq 2?

I don't have a problem with supporting dictators in general.  I think Mohammed VI in Morocco's doing a decent job, I think Jordan's King Hassan is similarly doing a good job and I think both may transition to democracy.  I think Netanyahu may make a deal with Assad and I wouldn't have an issue with supporting Assad.  In a wider world I think that Communist China is probably safer than what would immediately follow, similarly Vietnam's government.  I think dictatorships can be useful if they take the sort of buffer shocks of globalisation and then wither away (as has happened in some Asian states).  I don't think we should support them unless they're clearly developing the country.

What I think is ridiculous, however, is the idea that we should support dictators only in the Muslim world because Muslim's are somehow constitutionally unable to have a democratic society.  Pakistan is in crisis and that's a huge problem.  But even in Pakistan the radical Islamists, in elections, have never won more than 18% of the vote.  The same is true in Indonesia, in Bangladesh.  In Morocco they've only recently cracked 10% because they've moderated their message (modelled on the Turkish AK Party, another reason I think the AKP are good).

So of the 1 billion or so Muslims (and I think this figure's very debateable, some people put the figure much higher) in the world by my count, just of big countries, around half live in relatively stable democracies that are emerging (to varying degrees) and in economies that are developing (to varying degrees).  What of that, apart from praying towards Mecca, justifies thinking the people of those countries actually can't handle democracy?

[DisturbedPervert]

I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.

Too late, Obama already declared that we never have been and never will be at war with Islam. 

[Martinus]

I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.

How many Moslem truly fundamentalist countries are there in the world?

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAEs, Yemen (North & South).

Not exactly a tidal wave. Most countries are doing s bit of soul-searching but I'd hardly call it catastrophic.

Besides, Huntington might have written "Clash of Civilizations" but he never managed to explain what a civilization is.

Kevin

Learn to read, please. I didn't say all muslim countries are fundamentalist - I said those who are allowed to be democratic and are not propped up by the West (like Iraq) are.

Name as many muslim countries that are democratic, non-fundamentalist and not actively supported by the West. 

[Jos Theelen]

Name as many countries that do not fit my criteria of either (1) being "truly fundamentalist" and (2) not being run by dictators or governments that are actively supported by the West.

Indonesia, many countries at the North-coast of Africa and a few in the ME. Depends what you mean by dictators and "actively supported".
In Indonesia, many islamic parties just lost the elections.

[Eochaid]

Learn to read, please. I didn't say all muslim countries are fundamentalist - I said those who are allowed to be democratic and are not propped up by the West (like Iraq) are.

Name as many muslim countries that are democratic, non-fundamentalist and not actively supported by the West.

Oh Marty, it's so cute when you try talking politics with grown-ups.

OK, here goes:

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Bosnia, Indonesia, Bengladesh, Kosovo, Maldives, Senegal, Mali, Tchad, Comoros, Albania, Burkina Faso...

I left out all authoritarian regimes and all countries where democracy wouldn't survive without western military support.

Kevin

[Queequeg]

Neither Kosovo nor Muslim Bosnia would exist without Western Support.

[Eochaid]

Neither Kosovo nor Muslim Bosnia would exist without Western Support.

We're not discussing how these countries got their independence.

I'm just proving to Marty that Moslem democracies don't automatically bring Islamists to power.

Kevin

[Josquius]

I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.

Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.

And then they realise they made a horrible mistake.
Like all evil regimes radical islamic ones won't last long.

[clandestino]

Hey Eochaid, I fully agree with your point, but let's just say that your definition of "democracy" is a *little* bit broad.

[jimmy olsen]

I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.

Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.

And then they realise they made a horrible mistake.
Like all evil regimes radical islamic ones won't last long.

Iran's regime has been around quite a while.

[Josquius]

Iran's regime has been around quite a while.

30 years is not a while.
And it is deeply unpopular.

[Eochaid]

Hey Eochaid, I fully agree with your point, but let's just say that your definition of "democracy" is a *little* bit broad.

Democracy Index 2008.

They list 30 full democracies, 50 flawed democracies, 36 hybrid regimes and 51 authoritarian states.

Lets have a look at my list, with democracy score:

Albania (5.91)
Algeria  (3.32, fail)
Bengladesh (5.52)
Bosnia (5.70)
Egypt (3.89, fail)
Indonesia (6.34)
Kosovo (not scored yet)
Lebanon (5.62)
Malaysia (6.36)
Mali (5.87)
Morocco (3.88, fail)
Senegal (5.37)
Tunisia (2.96, fail)
Turkey (5.69)

I admit some of the countries failed the democracy test, but other Moslem countries I didn't mention actually passed the test: Mali, Tanzania, Ghana, Palestine etc.

Kevin