I was just sitting here in my kitchen on this glorious DC spring day, trying to enjoy my eggs, sausage and english muffin, reading the NYTimes, and of course was interrupted by an idea that compelled me to open my computer, which I swore I wouldn't do today, to post on the following.
Yesterday I posted on the article in the NYTimes that explains the Taliban's strategy in Swat, Pakistan - they exploited the unequal, uneasy relationship between wealthy landowners and disenfranchised peasants. The Taliban was able to address the grievances of the local peasants as so many leaders have throughout the past. We need to put this movement in context.
Last week I taught students about the Russian and Chinese Revolutions of the early 20th Century. In both countries (empires before the revolutions) leaders were able to hinge upon grievances of peasants and capitalize on anger toward foreign intrusions.
In China a nationalist, anti-imperialist revolution led by Sun Yat Sen got the ball rolling that would end in Mao and the communist party (KMT) takeover in 1949. Similarly in Russia, Lenin address unanswered complaints of discontented proletariat and landless peasants' with a communist ideology. Lenin also rallied people around his promise of a withdraw from WWI, during which the Russian population suffered greatly.
(These are both descriptions of these revolutions in a nutshell, they are much more nuanced, but I want to get this off before I have to go to my friend Claire's baby shower...grrr....(only kidding Claire, I am excited) bc if i don't I will be thinking about it the WHOLE time I am there.)
We need to pay attention to how and why the Taliban's message is appealing to some. I know people are starting to do this - ie Holbrooke and Adm. Mullen sitting down with tribal leaders asking them what they want.
Sure, most of the Taliban's appeal is that if you don't join they will kill your family (fear, terror) but they are also promising order, economic gain, and their rallying cry is criticizing US drone attacks, Lenin's WWI, Sun Yat Sen's imperialist spheres of influence.
I know that Communists and Nationalists are not the Taliban, but both are addressing local grievances, making their group appealing to local populations. We (or the Pakistan govt; doubtful) needs to try to address these grievances.
I guess my broader interest and point here is about revolutions - how and why they happen and and how and why some are successful and others are not. These extremists in FATA and in Pakistan are looking for a revolution; and we (US govt, Pakistan) need to treat it as such and look for legitimate ways to stop it. Force alone will not work here, especially not US force. (Why? We can't/ don't want to send troops into Pakistan for many reasons (I am sure there are several special ops teams there) meaning we can't execute a COIN strategy there, which is the only effective strategy possibly, as the premise of COIN is to live among and protect the local population from insurgents (here extremist Taliban).
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment