Tweet
Afghanistan (photo: United States Marine Corps/flickr)
The New York Times reported today on the killing of Mullah Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban minister and member of the Afghan High Peace Council. Though the Taliban denied involvement, they have allegedly threatened to assassinate members of the Peace Council and have done so in the past.
If the Taliban are behind this killing, their motive may have nothing to do with preventing peace, but rather positioning themselves for it – or at least for the inevitable departure of NATO.
It’s all about internal solidarity. A fractious guerrilla movement isn’t likely to do well in a peace settlement. Their opponents would rather buy them off piece by piece, offering individual militants and commanders a little something – a job, some cash, a position in the army, etc. But, if the guerrillas can negotiate as a solid bloc, then they can demand and are likely to receive more: territorial control, positions in the executive and military, government resources.
When the government is offering benefits for individual defectors, guerrilla leaders may find themselves disadvantaged. Instead of cash and a comfy job, all they can offer is more fighting, hardship, and possibly death.
They can, however, use violence, their specialty, to prevent their foot soldiers from defecting. Rahmani may have thus been a choice target: he was high-profile former militant, living openly in Kabul and working for the Karzai government. Killing him would send a powerful message to mid-level commanders and the rank-and-file. Defect and die. Furthermore, they can have it both ways. If the group denies it publicly, the risks of defection do not get cancelled out. A dead defector is still dead because of his defection.
This is speculation, of course. But, the Taliban have given some indications that they’re concerned about internal solidarity. Late last month the guerrillas rejected an offer to provide safe passage for “reconcilable Taliban” wanting to participate in peace talks, claiming that this was an effort to “create schisms in our ranks.” Additionally, American intelligence agencies have long attempted to create and exploit divisions within the Taliban, so their wariness is not unwarranted.
Then again, there’s the question of which Taliban was behind this. The Haqqani Network, which last year killed Peace Council member Burhanuddin Rabbani, is a likely suspect. And since Haqqani’s crew appears to be the closest to the Pakistani ISI, this latest killing may simply be aimed at ensuring that peace in Afghanistan is made on Pakistan’s terms.
22 Comments
When everyone’s face is covered and there aren’t any scorecards, there’s no way of knowing who the players are.
They want to set themselves up as the only alternative government yes. But they also are wary of any Afghan government office being a place where spies can gather local intel on them.
They have no reason to trust the government.
Could it be that they want *all* the intruders out? I am reminded of the story of St. Isaac Jogues, usually told as an example of the heroic persistance of the Jesuit missionaries, but looked at another way, it is a testament to the forbearance of the natives, who tried for years to convince the Christian missionaries that they were not welcome, and only killed this man when, after 4 years of discouragement ranging from “Go aWAY!!” to cutting off his thumbs to finally giving him a fatal whack, he still failed to take a hint.
If you want the killings to stop create a huge jobs program and hire everyone at a very nice wage. I am sure that there are plenty of jobs that need doing.
Oh wait we pissed off the locals with drone strikes that won’t work.
Yes and I cannot blame them.
“The New York Times reported today on the killing of Mullah Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban minister and member of the Afghan High Peace Council. Though the Taliban denied involvement, they have allegedly threatened to assassinate members of the Peace Council and have done so in the past.”
The NY-Times eh ?……the same NY-Times that told us that Iraq had WMDs eh……Ok!
Why are we still giving Pakistan any cash? They hid Ossama from us they have never tried to stop the Taliban despite us giving them tons of cash for years.
Makes sense to me. Write out the decision tree for the Taliban and potential defectors. The Taliban strategy is dominant.
What’s the Taliban’s motive????
What’s the U.S. motive? Much more obtuse and nonsensical.
Are we still dreaming that the second we leave the Afghan Government won’t fall and they will approve a natural gas pipeline and let us mine all kinds of minerals while paying the locals crap wages?
No plan, just pipe dreams.
Well, YES. That is the plan, we wrote it down and everything. Why is it not working?
*heh* The latest map… pnac progress(June’11)
Is there anything here that isn’t speculation. Would it be irresponsible not to speculate?
Not necessary to speculate. Taliban want to be left alone. U.S. wants to dominate. Whatsa problem.
You’ve got it all wrong.
Afghans don’t look at their activities as simply “more fighting, hardship, and possibly death,” they are fighting successfully for their country against infidel invaders. Of course they don’t want to negotiate with the invaders nor with a puppet government. They want to defeat it.
This isn’t the first time Afghans have successfully resisted an invader, and never before have they negotiated away their victory, no more than any other people would do.
They use violence, “their specialty,” just as the invaders do, except less of it because they lack F-16s and drones with Hellfire missiles. If they had them, they’d use them, just as the invaders do.
It’s wrong to criticize the enemy for not negotiating when most Americans, as usual, are calling for victory, not compromise. Why should they be any different? Regime change is a common objective of the U.S.
The Taliban’s motive is victory over the invaders.
In response to donbacon:
Your point provoked this thought: once Afghans drive out the United States, they may be free of war for the first time in 40 years. That may motivate many.
On the other hand, there is still the economic might of China and the cultural polarity of shiite Iran and sunni Pakistan who may return to using Afghanistan as a proxy.
America would have been best served by staying the hell out of Afghanistan except in so far as we prevented any other outsiders from interfering.
That would have been awesome for the Afghanis and the the least worst outcome for America. Unfortunately, the current elite in America are all Ivy League mis-educated, and have no common sense.
Actually, as no doubt you know, it’s more complicated.
In pulling out its combat troops the U.S. expects to leave a reliant puppet government because Afghanistan is the keystone to the U.S. Central Asia – New Silk Road Strategy. (Think oil, think gas, think $$$$$.) It probably won’t be the long-time puppet Karzai. That would require a constitution waiver, and be very messy. Anyhow Karzai is too sympathetic to the Taliban.
The U.S. State Department, as we know, is rather worthless when it comes to diplomacy, but eventually State will realize that the schmoozing up to India, and the congressional activists cozying up to the United Front, must somehow produce a new Afghan president allied with India and the United Front, AKA Northern Alliance. These are the Tajiks and Uzbeks who overthrew the Pashtun Taliban with U.S. help in 2001-2002.
Pakistan and their Taliban clients know this too. They don’t like it. Their only option is to go for the gold, which they have been quite successful at. So why quit. Why compromise. Why negotiate. It would be be disaster for them.
Since the US is notorious for its deployment of death squads of various kinds, under various covers, in global ‘hotspots’, there’s no need to take at face value any deaths attributed to the Taliban. And even if you do blame the Taliban, should you take into account the fact that the Taliban began as a US covert tool and presumably remain such, at least to some extent?
Or is it better to be naive and just believe in the white hat black hat fairy stories purveyed by talking heads and ‘experts’?
But the identity of the perpetrators may not matter as much as that of the victim. All that matters (perhaps) is that people understand that the person was killed because he defected. Maybe.
Interesting point. But, I would imagine that they would need to establish a functioning state (i.e. control the means of violence and distribution of public goods) before any peace could be established. But, the Taliban the only gang in town that can probably do this, which may not bode well for women and non-Sunni Muslims in the country.
I take your point. I was a bit more succinct than I usually try to be when I consider motivations. And far too rationalist. The Taliban do provide militants with much more than simple hardships and militants are motivated by more than simple gain. Joining the Taliban can give an individual pride, honor, and prestige, i.e. as being part of a movement that is ridding Afghanistan of foreign occupation. Or, as I have read time and again, the Taliban provides individuals with the opportunity for revenge. In fact, this is the problem with the Afghan government and American military tactics that militarists tend to overlook: their corruption and heavy-handed tactics create the desire to “hit back” and take revenge. And the Taliban can provide individuals with the opportunity to do so.