Nick
asked
Tamim Ansary:
Do you think that the current peace negotiations happening in Qatar between the Taliban and the U.S. could 1.) curtail the social gains made in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban government, and/or 2.) greatly impair the overall effectiveness of the central Afghan government if the Taliban were able to reach some sort of an agreement? (Finally, I just want to say that I strongly admired your books! Thank you!)
Tamim Ansary
That's a complicated question. Aren't they all. Regarding the curtailment of social gains, my simple answer would be: yes. If Taliban-types take real power, they will try to roll back women's rights, drive women out of public life, and reinstate the most reactionary interpretation of the Islamic shari'a. But there's another side to the coin: war tends not to go with real progressive social change. Social change that matters comes from within a society, not from outside forces imposing progress by force. And the progressive impulse exists in Afghanistan, it's a force too. Afghan women should not be seen as objects of pity but as subjects to be admired. The progressive side of Afghan culture, mostly urban, is just as tough as the rural reactionaries. The most dramatic period of social change in Afghanistan was not the 19 years since the fall of the Taliban; it was, by far, the 19 years from 1959 to 1978, when Afghanistan was pretty much at peace and under sovereign Afghan rule. Left to themselves, ruled by themselves, Afghans were making staggering strides. Then came the Soviet invasion and all that followed and by 2,000 the country was buried in a nightmare of reactionary darkness. So peace, I'd say, is essential to progressive social change. If the meetings in Qatar bring real peace, there's no predicting how the struggle between progress and reaction will go in Afghanistan. But let me complicate the question one step more. The term "Taliban" is often used as if referred to a certain organized group with a particular program. Really, it's more like an umbrella term for a social demographic within Afghan culture. It would be more accurate, if more clumsy, to use a term like "reactionary Islamism rooted in rural culture," Quasi-organized groups of that description abound and which of them answer to which others is, I believe, an open question. Therefore, when we speak of peace negotiations between "the" Taliban and the U.S. we must ask: which Taliban? And over whom do these particular Taliban have actual authority back in Afghanistan? Finally, I'd be surprised if these negotiations lead to a real peace deal. The thing is, Taliban of all stripes have one non-negotiable demand: a complete U.S. withdrawal from the country. And while some reports make it seem like U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is in fact winding down as troops are removed, there are private military contractors swarming in to replace those troops, a foreign army of a different kind. Also, since the Obama years, drone warfare has taken over from boots-on-the-ground soldiers as the military tactic of choice. So number of troops is no longer really a measure of military involvement.
Since the U.S. has two major air bases in Afghanistan, from which U.S. airplanes can reach Moscow, Tehran, Delhi, and Beijing, I'd be surprised if U.S. negotiators agree to an actual military withdrawal that results in the loss of those bases. So, I guess my answer is: we'll see. (And hey: thanks for the comment about my books.)
Since the U.S. has two major air bases in Afghanistan, from which U.S. airplanes can reach Moscow, Tehran, Delhi, and Beijing, I'd be surprised if U.S. negotiators agree to an actual military withdrawal that results in the loss of those bases. So, I guess my answer is: we'll see. (And hey: thanks for the comment about my books.)
More Answered Questions
About Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
