RUSI is a reputable organisation with its feet firmly on the ground and contacts with the highest decision making bodies. Hence its research that the Taliban may be willing to negotiate peace has to be taken seriously. But the spin on the news is somewhat reflective of where RUSI and much of the USA-UK have been in the last decade. The real news is not that the Taliban are willing to change, but that the USA-UK may be willing to negotiate.
The Taliban, despite their uncomplimentary image of merciless fanatic killers, are in fact a pragmatic lot. Well the Pushtun tribes they come from are. Compromises within reason are a way of life in these tribes. Their decision making is consensual rather than democratic. Consensus requires compromises.
The USA's response after 9/11 was a demand that Taliban surrender sovereignty, hand over Al Qaeda (AQ) along with Bin Laden and allow US army to inspect all 'training' camps inside Afghanistan. The Taliban response was as expected. They refused to surrender sovereignty. They refused to hand over 'guests'. They demanded evidence of Bin Laden's involvement and suggested talks. A guest is treated with more respect than a family person among Pushtoons. Bin Laden had helped the Taliban in their struggles and was therefore a 'special' guest.
The Taliban also said that they had no hand and no interest in AQ's global war. AQ's war was not Taliban's war. They even condemned 9/11.
Any person who had studied the Pushtun would have advised the US-UK that there is a way to do business with them and it is certainly not war. All that the Americans had to do was park a few warships in the Arabian Sea and get a promise from the Taliban that AQ would not be allowed to launch any attacks or propaganda against American interests from Taliban controlled soil, then gradually negotiate Bin Laden's surrender. The threat of war would have worked better than war itself. I even wrote a piece on this a few years ago.
But then superpowers like to show muscle over common sense. The US and UK saw it cakewalk to bombing Taliban out of office, parachuting in to arrest Bin Laden and makeover Afghanistan in the image of a western modern democracy within a couple of years. Easy, peasy with Rumsfeld in charge.
But fate delivered a different hand. True to tradition, the Taliban disappeared from seats of power and regrouped in their mountains. Relentlessly and mercilessly, Taliban started upsetting the best laid plans. They have been helped by the powerful Pakistan intelligence, ISI, which nurtured them the in the first place.
The ISI wants continuing dollar aid for Pakistan's fragile economy and security against India. The Taliban want to run their version of Islamic rule in Afghanistan.
As for development, women's rights, girls schools etc, these would have happened in time anyway. Most Islamic countries who resisted equal opportunities for women, have changed. Except those who have dollars gushing from the sand (oil). It is economics. Let us not forget that the biggest change in European attitudes towards women joining the workplace happened during the world war when women were needed in factories and offices. Even the Ayotollahs in Iran saw economic sense in women working than sitting at home. It would have been a matter of time before the Taliban, needing all the modcons, weapons and luxuries, had realised the need for the other half of the potential workforce to be schooled. Economic development always happens, look at Vietnam.
RUSI's findings, therefore, show no real shift in the position of the Taliban, except that the Taliban have acceded to a few neutered US bases in Afghanistan after ten years of war with borrowed dollars from the Federal Reserve.
The Taliban have said they want Karzai out. Secondly they will form their own constitution. And that they have no truck with AQ, which they never had. All that has changed is that since they have not been in a position to treat the AQ as guests, the issue of protecting the guest no longer arises.
9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban, however mad or bad they are. RUSI's so called research, whether it admits or not, is paving the way for an honourable exit. Pity that the US-UK may have learnt a lot about dealing with Taliban by dusting down those old colonial records and books on the Pathans instead of the hard way through blood, sweat and dollars.
All that is needed is; promise aid to Pakistan for the next decade, give Afghanistan back to a Taliban led coalition and kick Karzai out by publicising his Government's corruption and find another war to concentrate on. Job done. Don't need research for that.
Follow Jasdev Singh Rai on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JasdevRai
Similarly with Afghanistan, forces went in to remove the Al Qaeda base/network and take out Bin Laden whom they deem responsible for 9/11. Again Bin Laden wasn't found till ten years later, but the removal of the Taliban from total power made the conflict justifiable from Western Governments. But the Taliban just regrouped and became stronger, recruiting defectors from opposing tribes, which has made this conflict a mess & more complex. What happened to the Northern Alliance? Yes the Taliban are a backward evil regime, but they were around well before 9/11, but there was little if any outcry from here. The end of Rambo III, the very group which morphed into the people we were fighting were praised in dedication. They were armed by the West when fighting the Russians, so in a sense, Bin Laden, very much like Saddam, were the West's 'Frankenstein', have we learned the lesson?
Political analysis, Dear Doctor Singh, is more than recycling tired nostrums and statements of the blindingly obvious. So either try to put some original thought into it or leave it to those with a bit of insight and capacity to express themselves while you stick to medicine
On the substance of the article, I am not offering an analysis. Rather it is RUSI offering an analysis 10 years too late, an ‘insight’ that was obvious from day one. That is my point. It is RUSI which is promoting this as a big news item. So what is the news as you rightly ask? Nothing, is what I say.
RUSI is a sort of first line spokesperson for changing Government policies. That, I think is the news. That after 10 years of battling it out, we are now ready to do what we could have done 10 years ago. Was it worth spending billions to come to a point that we could have known by reading old colonial documents? And as you say, even the Sun made that analysis.
Try and discuss the substance of the article than make remarks such as, ‘go back to medicine’. That is used by MPs in parliament not by ‘experts’. So what is the new insight that has emerged from this research?
Any comments on that?
Josan
Perhaps we can say, the Taliban have been forced to share power, we started girls schools, have democracy, althought we don't know how long that will last. USA can also claim to have developed the country's infrastructure to some extent. All with billions of dollars and many lives.
Your comment that the RUSI report says more about where RUSI has been is perhaps to the point. Maybe this is a a propaganda research to try to get the British public behind a plan that is effectively throwing the towel in. There is a spin. Girls school and dmeocracy etc. But as you say, this would have happened anyway. I am not that convinced. May be we can introduce democracy in Saudi Arabia next.
John