Reddit reviews Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Second Edition
We found 19 Reddit comments about Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Second Edition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
If you are sincerely interested in learning more about this, I highly recommend Ahmed Rashid's journalistic magnum opus, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Second Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300163681/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_h91xDb0XMD6EN.
Can't hope to elucidate a complex narrative in a few words, but a good portion of the reason why the US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for so long comes down to international oil interests, consequences of the cold war, and Central Asian and Middle Eastern regional politics.
Check out the book. Hands down the most gripping nonfiction work I've had the pleasure to read.
Edit: to clarify, this book was first published in 2000. It is not an explanation of the wars, but a description of the geopolitical scene in Afghanistan written at a time before 9/11. Imo, it's incredible that Mr. Rashid was able to describe the structures and tensions which ended up explaining future wars.
Unfortunately, the most efficient way to become knowledgable about the Middle East is to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.
Books - General History of the Middle East
Books - Middle East Military History
Books - Middle East Terrorism and Substate Violence
Books - U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East
Think Tanks
Below is a list of several different think tanks, which frequently publish everything from extension research and analysis to quick and succinct blog posts about the issues in the Middle East. Some of these think tanks specifically focus on the Middle East, while for others it is only one area of their research.
Journals, Blogs, Podcasts, and other Publications
During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.
CIA funding flowed to mujahideen via Pakistan, which fanned the flames of militancy to keep its influence in Afghanistan, and also use these elements against its fight with India.
These very forces were cause celebre to defeat the Russia, but once the funding dried up these elements had nothing to do. The nexus between Pakistan ISI and Taliban is well documented. The handlers ultimately failed to handle these extremists and now the dance with the devil is affecting Pakistan as well, among others.
Highly recommend reading this book on Taliban.
You might like My Khyber Marriage and Valley of the Giant Buddahs. They are autobiographical reports by a Scotswoman who married a Pashtun and moved to Afghanistan in the 1920s. My Life: From Brigand to King--Autobiography of Amir Habibullah may also be of interest. It is an as-told-to autobiography of an Afghan brigand who briefly overthrew the King about ten years after the first two books were written. The Road to Oxiana is a bit clunky but offers a Western perspective on Afghanistan in the 1930s.
The more general Afghanistan of the Afghans, written by the husband of the woman mentioned above, focuses a lot of culture and cultural history, Afghanistan is a more general history and this Afghanistan claims to be more about the military history but I haven't read it myself to judge.
If you want something more contemporary, The Places In Between is a decent travelogue by an adventurer/preservationist/mercenary who walked through parts of the country. It didn't blow me away but it is interesting and most contemporary Afghan books from the West are such trash that this one shines in comparison. The author really did go to areas of Afghanistan about which most people know very little.
Ghost Wars is a popular book that focuses on the US involvement in the area during the Soviet Afghan war. Taliban is another popular book, and focuses on the Taliban in the 1990s and early 2000s. The link is to the second edition which I believe is updated.
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Fundamentalism-Central-Edition/dp/0300163681/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396212194&sr=8-1
I haven't read it, but I trust the author, because I've read his more recent books.
It focuses more on Al-Qaeda, but Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower', is usually the first book I suggest to people looking to learn more about the broader subject. My Trip to Al-Qaeda is a documentary that covers a little bit about the book, which I highly suggest reading.
Other authors I read about the Middle East:
Robert Fisk
Ahmed Rashid
Rashid Khalidi
Steve Coll
George Packer
Peter Bergen
Thomas Ricks
Dexter Filkins
Jeremy Scahill
Read Ahmed Rashid's "Taliban" and "Descent Into Chaos". He's the guy in the picture for reference. One of the few people in the world who have actually interviewed Mullah Omar (the founder of the Taliban) as well as many other ranking officers within the command structure, without a doubt he's the foremost authority on the subject. Yet he writes in such a simple and direct manner about the facts and figures as they evolved, without any of the propaganda or politics.
If I had to synthesize my undergrad in Pol Sci into a handful of books, these two would be at the top of the list. Truly an eye opener into this issue
It's not common knowledge. More liek common lies. The 'source' you cite is hardly one. It appears to be a compilation of rumors and what 'some analysts believe'. Basically meaningless.
A good source to start with with is Ahmed Rashid, who wrote the definitive account about the origins of the Taliban called ... well, "Taliban". In his travels during the 1990s through Afhanistan he bumped into a certain hothead from Saudi Arabia with lots of money to throw around. Rashid is a Pakistani reporter who was on the ground, and appears to have attended the earliest meetings with these militants, that eventually led to the creation of the Taliban. Before that though, he was in and out of the Afghan war zone and clearly remembered seeing Osama Bin Laden before he became the world's bogeyman.
Rashid wrote - not too surprisingly - that everyone knew the source of the money that was putting weapons into the hands of these fighters. Everyone, of course, included Osama. Rashid went on to say that Osama was greatly offended by the idea that foreign western entities were paying for the defense of a Muslim homeland. In Osama's mind, there was no honor in fighting against one infidel (USSR) with the materials and funds provided by other infidels (US, Europe, et al). In addition, Osama had money. He was rich. He didn't need western handouts. Rashid goes into great detail about these visits and proves the lie that the US or any other foreign country provided any direct assistance to the creation of Al Qaeda.
Edit: The book - http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Fundamentalism-Central-Edition/dp/0300163681
Right off the top of my head, I'd recommend the two books in our wiki that touch on the subject:
---
I would add that a better lens for understanding oil, and energy as a whole, would be to read up and understand supply chains.
What's the saying... A good General is a master tactician, a great General is a master strategian, but a legendary General is a master
logicianlogistician. While a little off-topic and admittingly anecdotal, I've always liked this story; one of the main reasons the Romans continually bested their foes is because they saw conflict through the lens of "how many bushels of wheat will it take to sustain X Legionnaires" while their enemies simply counted how many swords were raised against them. That mindset with a methodical, disciplined fighting style allowed the Legionnaires to grind out their opponents over and over again. (Google The History of Rome podcast if that last story peaked your interest.)That last story about the Romans may seemed removed from modern day, but a recent example of just that is NATO's Libya campaign in 2011. Started at the behest of France/Italy, the US had to take over operations because their European allies literally ran out of ammo within a month into the campaign.
Yes.
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Fundamentalism-Central-Edition/dp/0300163681
The problem isn't religion, it's extremism. I've been reading Taliban and there's a bit about how Saudi Arabia really wasn't trying hard enough to get the Taliban to give up Bin Laden, and about how they weren't really funding the right groups that could make a difference in the war in the 90s (they're Wahhabi, so they funded some minor Wahhabi warlords instead of just funding a bunch of Shia, Sunni, ethnic Pashtun, etc. warlords).
Anyway, I'm too lazy to pull out the book so I'll paraphrase (badly), but someone in the 90s basically told Saudi leadership that if they don't do what they need to do, Islam is going to be defined by the extremists and Islamists and Taliban in the eyes of the West, and thus they're only going to see this fanatical, jihadist violence. So the West will miss all the nuances of Islam, and the overall goal of Islam (which he said is the formation of a cooperative, peaceful society [which I think, with my limited understanding of Islam, is mostly correct]).
And that's exactly what happened. The West sees Muslims as terrorists. Middle Easterners—really, Arabs more than Pashtuns or other groups—are firmly entrenched as the other.
>We are not fighting the second best military in the world. There is no second best. So who are we fighting for so long? Who gives them munitions? It seems as if it is a proxy war. Who is behind the insurgents?
Yet again I am going to point out that America won the war against the Taliban, the part we are not winning is the nation building. 3 months after the first American boots hit the ground they were no longer a threat to Afghanistan. In terms of funding the two big sources are going to be Pakistan and the opium trade. The taliban and other local groups collect a Zakat on the production, processing and transportation of opium and it is a very lucritive business.
>You cannot answer any of these questions.
Actually I can, this is one of the big benefits of reading.
>Think about why we can't win in Afghanistan or have our way in Syria without trying to pigeon hole or belittle me. It is not because we have the greatest military and weaponry.
You are failing to grasp this point no matter how easy I try and make it, a video is about the only way I can make this any easier. This is a TED talk with Thomas PM Barnett, he is a great academic and makes my point about the US being able to take out anyone in the world in a matter of 48 hours but not being so good at the other stuff.
Or the book Taliban by Ahmed Rashid
Also, read Ahmed Rashid's book on the Taliban.
Neither Afghanistan or Iraq relate to the September 11 attacks, if that was your attempted insinuation. In fact, the attackers were principally of Saudi Arabian nationality, our closest ally in the Gulf. Specifically, of the 19 September 11 hijackers:
Incidentally, the United States funded both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban during their respective inceptions:
> A CIA program called Operation Cyclone channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen [Al-Qaeda's predecessor] who were fighting the Soviet occupation.
Likewise:
> The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools.
Would you like to try again?
Nope, just the product of hours and hours of non-fiction reading.
Start with Ahmed Rashid's Taliban to some background on the region, then get his next book Descent into Chaos that covers the US invasion. From there check out The Interrogator by former CIA spook Glenn Carle that will provide a basic understanding of some of the "black" operations post 2001. Next you need to read Top Secret America to realize just how leaky even the most top secret compartmentalized operations really are and how easy it is to track them down with the right resources.
Oh, wow. When has Afghanistan NOT been at war? America turned Afghanistan into a warzone?
I'm all for peace, and if a country is doing fine then we should stay the hell away. But Afghanistan has never been in the situation you seem to think it is. I'm glad you're passionate about a cause, but make sure you understand what's going on before you spread information like that. You get tons of people reading it and taking it for fact and eventually you have this huge group of misinformed people. I don't think I need to give you modern day examples.
I won't comment on Iraq, but you have Afghanistan completely wrong, in every aspect. And what's more is, like the people in this thread who have actually been to the country can tell you, their people actually support the US being there. If you care about them the way your posts suggests then you should be willing to take the time to learn what's actually going on in South Asia. A great place to start is by reading Taliban by Ahmed Rashid.
Angry Walter is also woefully ignorant of history.
Edit- if anyone is actually interested in learning about the Taliban and the history of Afghanistan so as to avoid gross oversimplifications like this meme, I suggest reading this and maybe this.
"Global War on Terror (GWOT) was known by those who fought it for long periods of boredom, punctuated by masturbation and enemy fire."
Seriously, there are so many viewpoints and critiques of the GWOT and implications of such an effort and progressing, globalizing world that Google really is your friend.
To give you only bullet points would be unfair. But I will toss a few good book links below.
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Fundamentalism-Central-Edition/dp/0300163681/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405913163&sr=8-1&keywords=taliban
http://www.amazon.com/American-Spartan-Promise-Mission-Betrayal/dp/0062114980/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405913151&sr=8-1&keywords=american+spartan
http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580522/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1405913294&sr=8-2&keywords=horse+soldiers
http://www.amazon.com/In-Graveyard-Empires-Americas-Afghanistan/dp/0393338517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405913285&sr=8-1&keywords=graveyard+of+empires
This book is a great start: http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Fundamentalism-Central-Second/dp/0300163681/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427830695&sr=8-1&keywords=taliban+by+ahmed+rashid I have not read the updated edition yet, the one I read predated 9/11, but basically a lot of regional powers, not just the US had a hand in it.
TLDR(compared the the excellent book): The Taliban came out of Saudi-funded schools set up for refugees in Pakistan and were able to consolidate power since they had a uniting ideology and brought brief stability in the hellscape that was post-war A-Stan. The US provided money and secured some weapons (via Israel oddly) and funneled them through Saudi and ISI intel networks. It's tempting for Americans who are at least somewhat aware of US backing of the Muj to mix up Al-Quaeda, the Taliban etc. and have no concept of Pakistan or Iran's interests in the area, or the Saudi export of Wahabism as a counter to post-revolutions Iran's growing influence. I say blame the UK and BP in particular for duping us into installing the Shah. Most of our pseudo-imperial shitshows of the last century have been monkeying with other former European colonies or paranoia about Communism.