As usual, before I begin, I do encourage my readers to carefully do their own research.
I have been pondering, like many, the recent transaction of geopolitics in the Middle East. Specifically, the Taliban taking over Afghanistan’s capital (Kabul) effectively reinstating their 20-year expired reign over the country.
My first thought was, “what does this mean for me?”
I must admit I wasn’t entirely sure. I’ve heard of the group, specifically in the news mentioned alongside terrorism, the Iraq War, and other notable mentions from various networks and shows along both party lines for the past, well, ever. I, however, was not entirely sure what precisely the Taliban’s role in terrorism is & was. So like any normative American, I googled it and found my answers.
From here, I found out a couple of critical facts.
- They are a Sunni Islamic group that took control of Afghanistan in 1992 after the Soviet-backed government fell.
- The Taliban’s previous (and at the time only) leader Mullah Omar (deceased), was a significant supporter of Bin Laden.
- During their last reign of Afghanistan, the Taliban served as a “safe harbor” for terrorism, notably Al-Queda as they plotted 9/11.
- Their ideological beliefs also support what many find to be human rights violations (notably their views and actions towards females and international terrorism).
So, my assessment validated my original question. The Taliban are not directly responsible for that many things. Still, the Taliban seems always to be associated with or enabling groups accountable for a lot of specific terrorist actions throughout the world.
Bottom line, losing Afghanistan to the Taliban, regardless of the nature of the transaction, is a bad thing. Immediately I started to think about what kind of resolutions there could be.
Could you annihilate Afghanistan? Probably not. Aside from the probable restrictions within the Geneva Convention, it would be a humanitarian and climate disaster. On top of humanitarian and environmental concerns, America’s international presence is driven and ideally practiced under the umbrella of operating for the “better good.” The connotation and implication of annihilation do not fit that modus operandi.
What is the humanitarian aspect of Afghanistan? Well, there is a population of 38 million Afghani citizens. With a rough, blue sky percentage, one could assume that 80% of the population is not part of or supports in any way some radical sect of Islam (around 30.4 Million directly innocent citizens).
What are non-violent measures? You could do a few things:
- Remove food supply.
- Scramble satellite and disable ethernet.
- Constant aerial surveillance.
Removing food supply. Putting a country in famine is obviously in violation of the humanitarian aspect. Not to mention this would be a nightmare actually to do as Afghanistan shares borders with six different countries. On top of the two former fallacies with removing food supply is that 23% of Afghanistan’s GDP is Agriculture (excluding their notable & illegal opium production and trade), which essentially means they can feed themselves.
Scramble satellite and disable ethernet would render most espionage and intelligence efforts by America and her allies mute; however, it would make Afghanistan less favorable as a harbor for terrorist activities.
Constant Aerial Surveillance has several fundamental limitations. We are no more than “on paper” allies with any countries that touches borders with Afghanistan, which means creating a base to support a fleet of drones to accomplish 24/7 surveillance might not be welcome with open arms. On top of this, many drones used by the military have limited flight distance. Kabul, the area of most significant concern, is close to the center of Afghanistan, roughly a radius of 360 miles to any point on its border (we would need low-altitude, longer-range UAVs that currently are not in wide use). I would reference an estimate of the cost of flying 1,000 drones 24/7, let alone analyzing all of the data collected; however, it’s astronomical and non-imperative given this op-ed.
Moral of the story: The Taliban taking back control of Afghanistan is a logistics cluster F*#%.
They seem willing to play by some rules to gain the grace of the international community, and they claim to be a “different” Taliban. I do not believe there will be any version of the Taliban that Western Civilization will ever accept; however, I think there is a version of Taliban we can begrudgingly tolerate. That version being: a Taliban running Afghanistan that *Does Not* use it’s interior as a harbor for terrorism.
In his book “Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory,” Hinman speaks about Ethical Relativism, both descriptive and normative. He defines descriptive relativism as “…different people in fact have different moral beliefs, without taking any stand on the rightness or wrongness of those beliefs.” Hinman then describes how normative relativism expands upon descriptive relativism by stating “each moral code is valid relative only to the culture in which it exists”. Esoteric and highly academic, I think Hinman’s view of relativistic morality is highly applicative to the current events mentioned in this op-ed. The whole idea of normative relativism states that what is wrong to me might be considered righteous by someone else in another culture. Because of the very existence of this cultural identity, there will always be conflict.
The question of two or more cultures with differing moralities and belief structures is: what shape or proverbial form any transgression takes? Does the Taliban want to turn towards aggression and anti-American sentiments? Do the United States and its allies want to understand the “new” Taliban before taking action? The question posed to each section of culture cannot be answered without time. The real question for the Taliban is what direction they take. With potentially $1 Trillion in untapped manerials (notabily lithium, a key mineral for renewable energy progress), Afghanistan has natural wealth to restore itself back to a contributing, productive, and a perphaps a country tolerated on the world stage. An example of a State that the U.S. tolerates is Saudi Arabia, whose culture can be consider as humanaritianly toxic.
While perhaps romantic, I hope the outcome is non-violent & does not escalate. Regardless Biden and the vast majority of civilized nations have their hands full for the time being.
Enjoy the read?
Smash the clap button!
Share.
