Posts Tagged ‘ Islam ’

We Shouldn’t Negotiate with the Taliban’s Top Leaders

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

The notion of integrating top Taliban commanders into the Afghan government is gaining traction among influential members of the Obama administration. Joe Biden likes the idea, as apparently does Richard Holbrooke, while Gen. Stanley McChrystal has indicated he could see a role for Taliban members in government.

On the surface, it’s an attractive solution. The administration is rightly skeptical of the election-stealing Afghan President Karzai, who continues to rule a corrupt regime. “(Sigh.) Fine. Let the Taliban into government,” you can almost hear war-weary NSC officials dejectedly admit, “at least it’ll help get us the #@*% out of there.”

Unfortunately, it’s a short-sighted solution that will ultimately undermine NATO’s many hard-won victories in Afghanistan over the last eight-plus years.

Before digging into the why, it’s important to clarify exactly what’s under consideration. Today, the WaPo reported that in an effort “energize the peace process,” the U.N. has lifted sanctions against five former Taliban officials who are prepared to renounce violence. These converts fall in a different category than what the White House is currently debating. While reconciliation with the likes of hard-core top Taliban elements like Mullah Omar is out of the question, an administration official conceded that the White House was discussing “above low- and mid-level fighters.”

Stop right there: Those low- and mid-level fighters are far enough. Above that pay-grade, the Taliban’s mid-tier officers are in it not just for the paycheck, but for steadfast ideological convictions that are much harder to genuinely convert.
And that ideology fundamentally rejects the pillars supporting government in Kabul. As Barbara Elias writes in a hard-hitting essay for Foreign Affairs, governing within an even partially Westernized democracy is out of the question:

Their [the Taliban's] legitimacy rests not on their governing skills, popular support, or territorial control, but on their claim to represent what they perceive as sharia rule. This means upholding the image that they are guided entirely by Islamic principles; as such, they cannot make concessions to, or earnestly negotiate with, secular states.

In other words, we should be highly suspicious when the likes of Taliban leader Mullah Omar makes overtures about playing “our role in peace and stability of the region,” as he did in the fall. It’s a trap – the Taliban’s leaders want to join government to overthrow what it sees as a traitorous regime supported by infidel Western tyrants, not to act as a constructive governing partner. Once sharing power, the Taliban’s ideological resolve will only harden as its members refuse to accommodate otherwise constructive solutions forwarded by their more secular domestic or international partners.

It is far more constructive to remove the ideologues’ foot soldiers, which is precisely the aim of a potential $1 billion program for jobs and education for the Taliban’s grunts. Depriving the Taliban of its army is critical to removing its ability to peddle fear and repression outside of power. Integrating its non-contrite higher-ranking officers into the government just gives them a different kind of army.

That’s why it is yet again gut check time for the White House. Working with the most vile members of the Taliban is a great temptation, but will prove a fool’s errand.

Cheney At War

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Former Vice President Dick CheneyThe last person we needed to hear about the terrorist incident over Detroit was Conservative of the Year Dick Cheney. But naturally, he’s out now with the most obnoxious statement imaginable about the president’s own reaction:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.

Forget for a moment the stupid little slur at the end about “social transformation,” an obligatory nod to the conservative movement’s bizarre suggestion that Barack Obama is in the process of creating a Soviet America of some sort. What’s amazing about Cheney’s statement is his extraordinary assertion, in the absence of any real evidence on the subject at present, that the attempted bombing was some sort of major act of war like 9/11 warranting a major reaction by the nation and its chief executive.

Has it crossed Cheney’s mind, even once, over the last nine years that routine overreaction by U.S. leaders is one of the most cherished goals of al Qaeda and its allies? Does Cheney understand that conceding the ability of a scattered band of terrorists to completely control the foreign policy of the world’s great superpower, to dominate its news, to panic it into abandoning its own values and legal system, “emboldens” terrorists more than anything else we could do?

Just wondering.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Lessons From Flight 253

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

President Obama seems determined not to overreact to the narrowly failed attempt by Islamist terrorists to massacre Americans on Christmas Day. Three days passed before he issued a statement on the attack.

Obama clearly believes that a measured response is preferable to his predecessor’s bellicose bluster and call for an unrelenting U.S. “war on terror.” That’s probably right, but the plot by al Qaeda’s Yemen branch to blow up a U.S. airliner also demands urgent and resolute action from America’s commander in chief.

First, the White House must shake up America’s homeland security bureaucracy. The U.S. got a break when the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be suicide bomber aboard Northwest Flight 253, warned our embassy in Nigeria that his son had fallen under the spell of radical Islam. Inexplicably, however, Abdulmutallab’s name was not placed on the “no-fly” list, nor was he stripped of the U.S. visa he had previously acquired.

As Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano admitted Sunday, the system emphatically did not work, and the White House must quickly find out why and hold those responsible for its failure strictly accountable.

It was also disturbing that Abdulmutallab had no trouble clearing airline security with explosive chemicals sewn into his underwear. But spending billions on millimeter-wave machines, and subjecting all passengers to even more time-consuming and invasive searches may not be the wisest response. Terrorists are inventive and will always find ways around screening regimes. A better use of transportation security resources is to identify high-risk passengers and subject them to higher levels of scrutiny.

Second, the White House clearly must give higher priority to preventing Yemen from becoming a haven for Islamist radicals. The plot was hatched by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in retaliation for U.S. counterterrorism assistance to the Yemeni government. The U.S. must step up those efforts, but we should also consider investing more in counter-radicalization programs such as have been used in Saudi Arabia and Europe to dissuade young Muslims from embracing extremism.

Third, Obama needs to challenge Muslim spiritual and lay leaders to confront the scourge of jihadist fanaticism in their midst. The willingness of young men and women to slaughter innocents in Islam’s name is first and foremost a Muslim problem. Its victims – including the thousands of civilians randomly murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and elsewhere — are chiefly Muslims.

Islamist radicalism is an ideology, one shaped by a particularly virulent and violent form of religio-ethnic identity politics. It feeds on myths of external oppression and cultivates a sense of victimhood. Only credible Muslim leaders can put the lie to these myths. Only credible Muslim religious authorities can discredit the cult of martyrdom that glamorizes suicide killers and terrorists.

President Obama is right to search for ways to protect Americans from Islamist terror without feeding the jihadist narrative of a U.S.-led war on Islam. But he and other world leaders should speak clearly to the Muslim world about its responsibility to confront those who kill and terrorize in Islam’s name.

Shadi Hamid on the “Cairo Conundrum”

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

A great new piece from Shadi Hamid in the latest Democracy: A Journal of Ideas on “The Cairo Conundrum” — the seeming paradox between peace and stability in the Middle East. Hamid examines American policy towards Egypt, arguing convincingly:

[T]he pursuit of peace came to depend on prevailing authoritarian structures. Unless autocracy can be made permanent–and there is little reason to think that it can–this state of affairs is unsustainable. If Obama wishes to repair relationships with Middle Eastern governments, then he may, in the process, alienate the other key constituency he seemed to be speaking to [in Cairo] on June 4: the millions of everyday Arabs and Muslims hoping for more freedom and democracy.

He offers a dual-track approach to break the longstanding American mindset that democracy and stability in Egypt are a zero-sum game. The first track is “positive conditionality” — offering even more aid to Egypt, provided the government meets a series of democratization benchmarks. Should it fail in the first year, the money would be denied but rolled over into an accumulating fund. The entire amount would remain available once Egypt fulfilled the requirements; fail to do so, and the price of non-compliance would grow every year. The second track is “Islamic engagement” whereby the administration would facilitate political participation with moderate Islamist parties that renounce violence.

Hamid’s formula may not prove to be ultimately successful — after all it is quite possible that Egypt would be happy to accept ever-increasing American donations while feigning a reformist bent. But as long as the White House remains continually engaged across the spectrum of Egyptian politics, it is quite possible that Hamid’s formula of grassroots pressure married to large financial incentives could move Egypt along the path to democratic openness.