Michael Scheuer: Critical appraisal, analysis and discussion

[Badlun]

I see Michael Scheuer is the favorite of Islamists and even

In a videotape released around September 7, 2007, Osama bin Laden stated, "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer."
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf


But I think he is not at all supporting Al Qaeda, Taliban, Islamism, political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism. All his ideas are not correct and not benefiting USA and world at large.

In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer#cite_note-sep7-4

It means working in CIA he himself worked against Aal Qaeda and was part of the policy formulation team of USA against Al Qaeda

He considers Islamism worse than terrorism.


He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism") is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces.

Imperial Hubris. page 253

I agree that US is doing all right in the following points except the last one.

In his second book, Imperial Hubris, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

• U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
• U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
• U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
• U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
• U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments."Imperial Hubris, page 241

Even the last point can be justified in the national interest of US. Iraq and Afghanistan are not occupations but helping the local people and governments to fight a common enemy and these interventions are approved by UN. Israel is US ally and the only democratic country in Middle east so why US will not support it . US is also supporting Egypt, Palestine and many other Muslim and Arab countries. Oil and army presence are in the Geo-strategic and economic interest of US.


Let us have an analytical discussion on Scheur and his thoughts here.

[Badlun]

Will you find a more stupid man on the surface of earth than him who contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. It means Al Qaeda is fa better than the super power of the world and the world's biggest economy and than the developed world!

Who with a little bit of mental capacity will consider Al Qaeda more rational than the developed west. What Al Qaeda has given to the Muslims? Terrorism, militancy, extremism, wars, destruction, obscurantism and backwardness. What rational approach Al Qaeda has? Even owing to Al Qaeda Taliban lost its rule and Al Qqaeda does not have a single inch of legitimate piece of land in the whole world. How can it destroys the economy of a country like US?

[Khorosani]

Will you find a more stupid man on the surface of earth than him who contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. It means Al Qaeda is fa better than the super power of the world and the world's biggest economy and than the developed world!

Who with a little bit of mental capacity will consider Al Qaeda more rational than the developed west. What Al Qaeda has given to the Muslims? Terrorism, militancy, extremism, wars, destruction, obscurantism and backwardness. What rational approach Al Qaeda has? Even owing to Al Qaeda Taliban lost its rule and Al Qqaeda does not have a single inch of legitimate piece of land in the whole world. How can it destroys the economy of a country like US?

you have been colonized to the point you can't see any fault in your western masters.

[Tiger Khan]

I see Michael Scheuer is the favorite of Islamists and even

In a videotape released around September 7, 2007, Osama bin Laden stated, "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer."
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf


But I think he is not at all supporting Al Qaeda, Taliban, Islamism, political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism. All his ideas are not correct and not benefiting USA and world at large.

In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer#cite_note-sep7-4

It means working in CIA he himself worked against Aal Qaeda and was part of the policy formulation team of USA against Al Qaeda

He considers Islamism worse than terrorism.


He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism") is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces.

Imperial Hubris. page 253

I agree that US is doing all right in the following points except the last one.

In his second book, Imperial Hubris, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

• U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
• U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
• U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
• U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
• U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments."Imperial Hubris, page 241

Even the last point can be justified in the national interest of US. Iraq and Afghanistan are not occupations but helping the local people and governments to fight a common enemy and these interventions are approved by UN. Israel is US ally and the only democratic country in Middle east so why US will not support it . US is also supporting Egypt, Palestine and many other Muslim and Arab countries. Oil and army presence are in the Geo-strategic and economic interest of US.


Let us have an analytical discussion on Scheur and his thoughts here.

West is not muslims frined. Look at the history. Supporting monarchies (Saudi's, Saddams, Hosni Mubarak's etc), destroying democracies (Dr. Mussadiq, Dr. Moris Etc), they would only get involved when it is in there own best interests. Al Qaida has nothing to do with islam, Muslim world should sort them out. Al qaida is our trash and we should have dealt with them. No issues with Afghan Taliban though, (Again america is their (either for revenge, strategic location, energy corridor etc), but they dont care about afghans or other ethnic minorities there. Moreover, Tajiks have always supported outside invaders in Afghanistan, but that strategy has always backfired for them.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I see Michael Scheuer is the favorite of Islamists and even

But I think he is not at all supporting Al Qaeda, Taliban, Islamism, political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism. All his ideas are not correct and not benefiting USA and world at large.

You either pretend to be extremely stupid or you are actually stupid to assume that Muslims think Sheuer is in favor of Islam.

He merely states the reason why Muslims and non Muslims are at war with each other.

The fact that most of the media is owned by you kaafirs and the fact that you distort facts to deceive people is the reason why we use people like Scheuer to make a point. He speaks on his own behalf as an expert rather than reproducing the politically correct narrative.

[SiiNii]

Michael Scheuer's personal website is named : non-intervention.com

He wants us out of all countries and I'm inclined to agree, our foreign military presence does nothing to secure the safety or prosperity of the American people.

Will you find a more stupid man on the surface of earth than him who contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. It means Al Qaeda is fa better than the super power of the world and the world's biggest economy and than the developed world!

Who with a little bit of mental capacity will consider Al Qaeda more rational than the developed west. What Al Qaeda has given to the Muslims? Terrorism, militancy, extremism, wars, destruction, obscurantism and backwardness. What rational approach Al Qaeda has? Even owing to Al Qaeda Taliban lost its rule and Al Qqaeda does not have a single inch of legitimate piece of land in the whole world. How can it destroys the economy of a country like US?

Do you know how many trillions of dollars GWOT has cost us? When we spend our money on the war effort instead of it being invested in public infrastructure, energy, and technology. Sun Tzu stated that twenty men were needed to sustain just one soldier in a foreign war, the general was speaking of ancient China and its surrounding lands. OEF/OIF happened on the other side of the planet, we can assume the ratio is much higher.

Don't forget the men who are off serving in the armed forces and its logistical support instead of doing things at home. For example I served with men who eventually went back home to the following occupations.

Aeronautical Engineer
Civil Engineer
Entymologist
Pilot
School teachers
Computer network administrators
Oil rig managers
Construction foremen
Health care professionals
and a whole host of skilled jobs such as electricians, welders, mechanics, farmers all jobs that create value. Instead they are spending at least 3 - 4 years of their lives in the desert, engaged in activities of net economic loss.


Next lets look at Al Qaeda's goals, assuming that the death of Bin Laden hasn't changed them.

1. Remove US forces from Muslim lands
2. Remove nominally Islamic governments and replace them with actual Islamist ones
3. Unite Muslims into a Caliphate
4. Reconquer former Muslims lands (includes destroying Israel)

since 2001 we have seen
1. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, closing of US embassies
2. The fall of secular Muslim governments, destabilization of others
3. Jihadists from around the world fighting together in the same 'anti-Infidel' coalition
4. Killzai was in southern Spain, ask him what it was like in Al Andalus

[Badlun]

Michael Scheuer's personal website is named : non-intervention.com

He wants us out of all countries and I'm inclined to agree, our foreign military presence does nothing to secure the safety or prosperity of the American people.




Do you know how many trillions of dollars GWOT has cost us? When we spend our money on the war effort instead of it being invested in public infrastructure, energy, and technology. Sun Tzu stated that twenty men were needed to sustain just one soldier in a foreign war, the general was speaking of ancient China and its surrounding lands. OEF/OIF happened on the other side of the planet, we can assume the ratio is much higher.

Don't forget the men who are off serving in the armed forces and its logistical support instead of doing things at home. For example I served with men who eventually went back home to the following occupations.

Aeronautical Engineer
Civil Engineer
Entymologist
Pilot
School teachers
Computer network administrators
Oil rig managers
Construction foremen
Health care professionals
and a whole host of skilled jobs such as electricians, welders, mechanics, farmers all jobs that create value. Instead they are spending at least 3 - 4 years of their lives in the desert, engaged in activities of net economic loss.


Next lets look at Al Qaeda's goals, assuming that the death of Bin Laden hasn't changed them.

1. Remove US forces from Muslim lands
2. Remove nominally Islamic governments and replace them with actual Islamist ones
3. Unite Muslims into a Caliphate
4. Reconquer former Muslims lands (includes destroying Israel)

since 2001 we have seen
1. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, closing of US embassies
2. The fall of secular Muslim governments, destabilization of others
3. Jihadists from around the world fighting together in the same 'anti-Infidel' coalition
4. Killzai was in southern Spain, ask him what it was like in Al Andalus

US is a super power not a country like Togo to remain isolated from the world affairs. US cannot see regimes like those of Taliban, Assad , Qaddafi and attacks of Al Qaeda and will remain silent like a small petty country otherwise it will lose its credibility as a world's super power.

In all wars there are losses, casualties and collateral damages. There will be psycho cases like yours. Its human and natural but the leadership should not succumb to such human weaknesses.

One Sinii or one Scheuer cannot be compared to the whole apparatus of White house, Pentagon, CIA and above all Congress. There you have wise, far sighted, intelligent and realists who decide for the betterment of US and the world.
Al Qaeda is now a moribund organization. Taliban are only stronger in Pashtun areas but they do not have a single inch of land of a legitimate rule. Their rule was toppled in few days by US. . Alqaeda has been considerably weakened in Africa, Yemen and other parts of the world.

[SiiNii]

You want to bring up ending 'evil' regimes? Why don't we invade North Korea first? How about supporting the rebels in Myanmar against the junta? Or taking down the numerous maniacs in sub-saharan Africa?

White house, Pentagon, CIA and above all Congress. There you have wise, far sighted, intelligent and realists who decide for the betterment of US and the world.

I'm glad to see you stopped hiding behind the message of peace and tolerance, that you really believe the US should run the entire world according to the interests of it's elites, punishing disobedience with murder, displacement and chaos.

In all wars there are losses, casualties and collateral damages

Physical cowards like you always like to say that 'it takes a few eggs to make an omelette', but never risk their own shells being cracked on the pan.

You don't address any of the arguments laid out by anyone else, instead you argue like a woman.

So Badlun is a male coward with a woman's mind.

Now I see why Barakzai always calls you a Kooney.

Al Qaeda is now a moribund organization

[BarakzaiAbdali]

You want to bring up ending 'evil' regimes? Why don't we invade North Korea first? How about supporting the rebels in Myanmar against the junta? Or taking down the numerous maniacs in sub-saharan Africa?



I'm glad to see you stopped hiding behind the message of peace and tolerance, that you really believe the US should run the entire world according to the interests of it's elites, punishing disobedience with murder, displacement and chaos.


Physical cowards like you always like to say that 'it takes a few eggs to make an omelette', but never risk their own shells being cracked on the pan.

You don't address any of the arguments laid out by anyone else, instead you argue like a woman.

So Badlun is a male coward with a woman's mind.

Now I see why Barakzai always calls you a Kooney.

SiiNii

It is superb to see an American soldier comment here to prove a case in point.

The fact that so many military votes and dollars went to Ron Paul shows that the average American - though he may view Islam with suspicion secondary to the war climate - does not want to be involved in wars on behalf of others.

Dr. Paul took Michael Scheuer on tour with him, and I suspect had he been elected he would have elevated Scheuer to either his cabinet or directorship of the CIA or Defense.

What I think Mike does very well is demonstrate that there are elites and their pandering acolytes (not the communist concept bourgioise as wealth has not much to do with this) in all quarters of the world who are willing to use the blood and treasure of others for their gain.

What you are seeing with Badlun (aka Osho) is that same sort of pathology. He is a part and parcel derived from another fifth column amongst Pashtuns that also exists in America. This fifth column has been deriving money and influence in Kabul at the expense of dead soldier-children. I am certain that these boys would have been doing just fine making love to their wives and living their lives back here and would have been happy enough to not kill Afghans, who in turn would be happy enough to lay down their weapons in a war of choice hoisted on them by these cowards.

America needs more people like you who want to save its internal humanity and save it from its slow and steady decline secondary to these fifth column gurus.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I see Michael Scheuer is the favorite of Islamists and even

In a videotape released around September 7, 2007, Osama bin Laden stated, "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer."
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf


As far as I have read it, Bin Laden could have been killed 6 times over based on Michael Scheuer's planning. Clinton ignored 3 of these opportunities. Bin Laden was impressed with Scheuer's ability to understand his enemy. The proof that he was viewed as an enemy is that various members of his organization criticized him and viewed him in the same category as Steven Emerson (a far less able person).

But I think he is not at all supporting Al Qaeda, Taliban, Islamism, political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism. All his ideas are not correct and not benefiting USA and world at large.

Actually your ideas are far from correct and generally border on somewhere on infantile. Of course he is not supporting Islamism. The way your militant secularist mindset works is that when you don't support something you ignore a scientific and analytical approach to analyzing it. For instance, a scientist may not like the AIDS virus but he doesn't sit around creating propaganda around it and letting emotion blind his reality.

In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...te_note-sep7-4

It means working in CIA he himself worked against Aal Qaeda and was part of the policy formulation team of USA against Al Qaeda

He considers Islamism worse than terrorism.


He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism") is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces.

This is insufficient as an analysis. Rather, he is saying that terrorists like the Unabomber are lethal nuisances. They are easily catchable and can be neutralized with simple law enforcement techniques. Insurgencies on the other hand are entirely different beasts.

Imperial Hubris. page 253

I agree that US is doing all right in the following points except the last one.

In his second book, Imperial Hubris, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

• U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
• U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
• U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
• U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
• U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments."Imperial Hubris, page 241

Even the last point can be justified in the national interest of US. Iraq and Afghanistan are not occupations but helping the local people and governments to fight a common enemy and these interventions are approved by UN. Israel is US ally and the only democratic country in Middle east so why US will not support it . US is also supporting Egypt, Palestine and many other Muslim and Arab countries. Oil and army presence are in the Geo-strategic and economic interest of US.

You are once again missing his point because you are superimposing militant secularist goals and aspirations over that of the American people.

Scheuer's point is not that these do not serve the national interest. The one where he is consistent that it does not is the Israel issue. He makes it apparent that the security drills America does with Israel are for her benefit but not America's. So generally, besides that single point he makes it clear that the other issues are up for debate by the American people.

He levels his criticism at the fact that successive governments have ignored the war powers distinction in the constitution etc. and have not allowed the American people to hear these six enumerated points for public debate.

Then he goes on to say the Americans have the choice of
1) Heeding the advice of Madison, Adams and others who made it clear that ideals above national security interests etc and chasing these ideals abroad is against the original charter.

2) But if we decide collectively to ignore that then America should be ready to use lethal force to destroy its enemies utterly.

Let us have an analytical discussion on Scheur and his thoughts here.

I would say your analysis would be poor and not worth discussing because you have generally shown an ineptitude and inability to follow a scientific, evidence based format. This is shown clearly in your devotion to Osho irrespective of the proven crimes he committed (ignoring the evidence of the American court) and also the various times you cited articles here that were poor quality. Usually your ratio of quality references to poor references is 1:6. An example recently is your Ahmad Shah Dorani reference which was far far below even elementary school standards and derived from one of the worst sources to date.

I would suggest that we use this thread space instead to discuss Mike's recent work on Syria.

A few great accomplishments were his prescient writings on Subcontinent attacks and insurgencies before they occurred:
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/...a-terror-tiger

^Article released 9/'08 and Mumbai occurred 11/'08. The last paragraph was ominous but perhaps overreaching. I would say that, like a good surgeon hunting appendicitis, its far better he overcalled it than undercalled it.

Or his articles on America funding a coup in Egypt we have posted here before the coup and the exposure by Al Jazeera of those funding sources

Or more recently his discussion of the ratcheting up on Syria before the most recent escalations.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Will you find a more stupid man on the surface of earth than him who contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. It means Al Qaeda is fa better than the super power of the world and the world's biggest economy and than the developed world!

Who with a little bit of mental capacity will consider Al Qaeda more rational than the developed west. What Al Qaeda has given to the Muslims? Terrorism, militancy, extremism, wars, destruction, obscurantism and backwardness. What rational approach Al Qaeda has? Even owing to Al Qaeda Taliban lost its rule and Al Qqaeda does not have a single inch of legitimate piece of land in the whole world. How can it destroys the economy of a country like US?

This coming from a militant secularist who thought Najibushaytaan was the messiah of Pashtuns LOLOL.

Lets see the differences between Osho/Badulunian expertise and Scheuer's approach:

1. Badlun generally has the worst references to date. See the Ahmad Shah Dorani thread and his attempts to attack Soldier Matthew Hoh.
1 prime: Scheuer references powerful academic work like the University of Maryland studies on the Muslim world:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Apr07_rpt.pdf

The Pew data:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

And finally, the Arizona University studies on Quranic viewpoints amongst Muslims:
http://csc.asu.edu/wp-content/upload...ran-verses.pdf

2. Badlun's agenda is that of militant secularism which is a parasitic agenda that relies on the strength of others to fight its struggles.
2 prime: Scheuer is a part of the very super power apparatus Badlun claimed to worship and respect. His goal is simply to serve his nation and destroy its enemies.

3. Badlun relies on arguments that are juvenile when he is on the verge of a loss: e.g. when discussing Shah Waliullah he simply says "I have studied him" to somehow prove a point when it proves nothing
3 prime: Scheuer actually has studied these people and the literature and is able to cite specific sections and references with great ease.

4. Badlun misinterprets Scheuer
4 prime: Scheuer interprets Badlun and his ilk perfectly and accurately.

5. Badlun is generally abnormal and follows a criminal guru who tried to use feces to poison the denizens of the state of Oregan.
5 prime: Scheuer is for the most part a normal human being who is not as socially or mentally unstable as Badlun.

6. Badlun is agenda laced - he admits that his upbringing was in the context of a family life centered around religion. Therefore, he is experiencing the psychiatric defense mechanism of reaction formation.
6 prime: the only thing scheuer has reaction formation against is some of the changing mores and culture of the US, but for the most part evidences guides scheuer not vice versa.

To end the discussion, we can say Peter Bergen's recent excellent article proves Scheuer's thesis beautifully:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/opinio...zawahiri-egypt

"

A recent Harvard Kennedy School

study of 131 terrorist groups

that have gone out of business found that they averaged 14 years of existence.

Al Qaeda has already shown an ability to survive well beyond the life of an average terrorist group. The big question is whether Zawahiri can successfully lead the al Qaeda network so it can thrive in today's chaotic conditions in the Middle East and can last another 25 years.

"

So for now, doyen Peter Bergen and the points above tend to show Scheuer is the winner and Badlun/Osho remains a propagandistic militant secularist.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

You want to bring up ending 'evil' regimes? Why don't we invade North Korea first? How about supporting the rebels in Myanmar against the junta? Or taking down the numerous maniacs in sub-saharan Africa?



I'm glad to see you stopped hiding behind the message of peace and tolerance, that you really believe the US should run the entire world according to the interests of it's elites, punishing disobedience with murder, displacement and chaos.


Physical cowards like you always like to say that 'it takes a few eggs to make an omelette', but never risk their own shells being cracked on the pan.

You don't address any of the arguments laid out by anyone else, instead you argue like a woman.

So Badlun is a male coward with a woman's mind.

Now I see why Barakzai always calls you a Kooney.

Lets turn the thread into a positive and discuss Mike's recent Syria articles. We can accomplish this by pretty much ignoring Badlun's posts which are sort of polished turds at best and filler at worst.

[SiiNii]

As far as I have read it, Bin Laden could have been killed 6 times over based on Michael Scheuer's planning. Clinton ignored 3 of these opportunities.

OBL could have been captured in the early stages of OEF but the operation was called off by high command on inexplicable orders. But don't take my word for it, because I'm just a guy on the internet. Take the word of the Delta Force ground commander of the operation. This great American donated all profits from that book to charity and threw away his entire military career in order to get this information out to the public.


The Hunt For Bin Laden - YouTube

[tor_khan]

@BarakzaiAbdali

@Badlun made a statement about the human damages of interventionism that was challenged by @SiNii. I would agree with the latter from a purely humanitarian point of view. Afghanistan has suffered enough without our folk being seen as expendable, but I am also aware that view sometimes comes from the luxury of being raised in a conflict-free environment where I haven't been forced to take sides. Afghans, I note, have a much more pragmatic view of life/death even when the lines within the war are blurred.

From our contributors here, I can understand why you might conclude that nationalism and secularism are regularly conflated with interventionism. However, where do you draw the line for interventionism? Are there degrees on interventionism that are acceptable or inevitable?

If US interventionism in Afghanistan is a mistake, presumably we can extend that to include Russian, Pakistani, Iranian and Indian intervention, correct? Putting to a side (for now) the discussion around the US intervention in Syria, if we argue that the US and the UK have no place in Afghanistan because they are physically removed, would this argument also be true for the Russians? Or do we exclude the Russians and India despite their neighbourhood influences on the basis of religion?

Muslims think of a the universality of the global ummah and do not recognise colonial boundaries. In that case Pakistan is an example where lines begin to blur somewhat as both Pakistan and Afghanistan are dealing with restive a Pashtun populace. However, if Pakistan (or Iran) have little right to intervene in Afghanistan because of their previous track, then is that not the argument that a nationalist (secularist) would make?

In short, can you argue the case for a sovereign Afghanistan if you view the Ummah as a global community? Should Pashtuns accept the dominance of other better educated and organised Muslims? Would such a view present the least nationalistic (and thereby secularist/interventionist) approach?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali

@Badlun made a statement about the human damages of interventionism that was challenged by @SiNii. I would agree with the latter from a purely humanitarian point of view. Afghanistan has suffered enough without our folk being seen as expendable, but I am also aware that view sometimes comes from the luxury of being raised in a conflict-free environment where I haven't been forced to take sides. Afghans, I note, have a much more pragmatic view of life/death even when the lines within the war are blurred.

In some ways, the humanitarian/moral vantage point is coincident with the gain for America. The premise appears to be that Afghanistan is prime land from which to see into the nuclear nation next door, Iran, and central asia. This then allows for a theoretically rapid response. I have to date, seen no proof of this except in the UBL raid and the capture of the drone called the Beast of Kandahar. In other economic ways, the various parts of the country have been parceled out to other nations. Most generals including Ralph Peters have noted this is more of a prestige thing for the Americans. This is something Scheuer has noted... in their imperial hubris, their concern is about bleeding out slowly instead of stopping the bleeding.

I also see this as a common canard - that those living in better environs should somehow accept that the conquering and occupation of Afghanistan might result in some monetary infusion and that this is "better than nothing." I fail to see the logic of such an ahistorical approach - as all historical approaches that result in indigenous acceptance of colonization have invariably led to devastation and havoc for the accepting people.

From our contributors here, I can understand why you might conclude that nationalism and secularism are regularly conflated with interventionism. However, where do you draw the line for interventionism? Are there degrees on interventionism that are acceptable or inevitable?

If US interventionism in Afghanistan is a mistake, presumably we can extend that to include Russian, Pakistani, Iranian and Indian intervention, correct?

Yes, but the culpability for some of this rests on the policy bought on by secular nationalists like Daud Khan who thought he was crafty enough and that thought his nation strong enough to balance two super powers and still play local land games.

One has to wonder why the local powindaay who have been crossing the durand line for decades in their own nonviolent way have never had the degree of problems that political leaders have had - they would winter in the low lands and summer in the high lands etc. What I mean by this is that the people continued to utilize the geography in the way that ought to have been. These leaders on the other hand chased quixotic windmills.

Putting to a side (for now) the discussion around the US intervention in Syria, if we argue that the US and the UK have no place in Afghanistan because they are physically removed, would this argument also be true for the Russians? Or do we exclude the Russians and India despite their neighbourhood influences on the basis of religion?

Muslims think of a the universality of the global ummah and do not recognise colonial boundaries.

We have to be careful about this concept of ummah. How a die hard Islamist defines it versus a concerned Muslim in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Bahrain who is more in tune with Islam as a concept of kinship relationship matters.

Political Islam has been a way for indigenous groups- who may not be intricately familiar with Islamic law details- to galvanize support against neocolonial forces, or in the case of Omar Mukhtar originally colonial forces.

In that case Pakistan is an example where lines begin to blur somewhat as both Pakistan and Afghanistan are dealing with restive a Pashtun populace.

There is a variant definition of what restive means. The restive folks in Afghanistan are restive due to different reasons than the restive folks across the border.

However, if Pakistan (or Iran) have little right to intervene in Afghanistan because of their previous track, then is that not the argument that a nationalist (secularist) would make?

No, because their argument is predicated on ideology leading and practicality following. Their marxist affinities gave them no qualm about inviting Russian intervention in the first place. Now, their wet dreams center around sustained Yankee presence so that white boys can fight and die for their causes. When they talk about Iran or Pakistan not intervening, its because Pakistan and Iran may back far gone reactionary forces on the one extreme pole whereas they backed avowed murderer masochists like Najibullah on the other hand.

So in that vein, secular nationalists are the fascists of the Muslim world - prima donnas who deem themselves more modern and educated but often are the least informed about their own people and ill educated about the western world they claim to want to replicate locally.

They basically are dangerous fifth column denizens whose voice outweighs their actual representation on the ground.

In short, can you argue the case for a sovereign Afghanistan if you view the Ummah as a global community?

The ummah has been in flux. In different regions central asians dominated it, Turks dominated it, Arabs dominated it, etc.

Even in the Afghan sphere, despite the Soldatian propaganda, the reactionary version of ummah did not produce an Arabic "Amir ul Momineen." The problem rather lay with a refugee community that utilized Afghanistan is a response base to interventionalism in their own lands. This is not unique. We see Ecuador also moving to silence Assange regarding Snowden and also regarding his recent political critiques of foes in his native Australia (i.e. sovereigns cannot gaurantee their guests will always play the role of guest).

Should Pashtuns accept the dominance of other better educated and organised Muslims? Would such a view present the least nationalistic (and thereby secularist/interventionist) approach?

I still fail to see this logic. Even in the after math of the original Afghan war it was mossoud a native Panjshiri on the one side and the other native Pashtuns on the other side. Each indigenous group had a backer but there was never any discussion of bowing to "better educated" Muslims.

Rather, I think this is in the box thinking and propaganda from the Osho/Badlun camp to somehow justify a completely alien entity conducting neocolonial efforts by generating a "phantom menace."

For instance, Mubarak free and Ben Ali free region did not automatically coalesce into one ummah, etc. So there is no historical precedent to claim Afghans free of American occupation will suddenly all decide to be subservient partners.

Furthermore, prophetic tradition has narrated the meritocratic approach to leadership is to occur in the ummah setting. Muhammad chided his companions and told them once that they should understand that if the most qualified were dark skinned and his skin were to be so shriveled as to be raisin like - but were he to be the most qualified - such a one should still lead despite his ethnicity and appearance.

Also, a federated ummah concept where everyone contributes to a federation is not unheard of.

In the US, the northeast is considered the most educated region... they beat the south in a bloody civil war - yet the south still has its electorial votes and has elected the majority of the presidents.

There is nothing at all in the Islamic thought or realm that would inhibit Muslims from emulating this approach of a federated body to preserve stability and integrity for the components

In summary Tor Khan, I think these arguments, though not yours, are ones that are feel good arguments for fifth column denizens who are trying to help themselves sleep at night for being traitorous vermin. They are traitorous to their own people's autonomy and traitorous to humanity by fomenting and sustaining war between two peoples who need not be at war - and they line their pockets with cash doing all of this.

x