Related articles and links |  1 of 4

"Time and again," Bearak writes,

America and other nations have accused Mr. bin Laden of terrorism and demanded his surrender to stand trial. Mullah Omar [the Taliban's leader] has refused.

One can speculate about the reasons. They might include the Afghan consecration of hospitality, the need the Taliban have for the Saudi multi-millionaire's support and a sincere belief in his innocence. Most Afghans presume that Mr. bin Laden's notorious reputation is undeserved.

One can speculate, yes, and one wishes that one could attribute a wicked irony to Bearak's suggestion that the "Afghan consecration of hospitality" accounts for the Taliban's intransigence. But Bearak appears to be writing for an infantilized public presumed to be incapable of critical thought, let alone the detection of irony.

What does it mean, for instance, to speak of "a sincere belief" in bin Laden's "innocence," when he has said quite openly that it is the duty of good Muslims to kill Americans? Elsewhere the Times has reported that bin Laden is widely regarded as a hero in Afghanistan and in many other Islamic countries. What is he a hero for? His hospitality?

But then much that we've been told about the Taliban doesn't make sense. A widely circulated piece first posted on Salon, "An Afghan-American Speaks," describes the Taliban as "a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997." The author, Tamim Ansary, explains that "the people of Afghanistan" had nothing to do with the ascendancy of the Taliban or the crimes of bin Laden:

When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps."

This piece has been forwarded to me by half a dozen Christian friends and acquaintances as an exceptionally valuable testimony. But wait a minute. How did the Nazis come to power? Who was it who adored Hitler? Why are there many Afghans outside Afghanistan who believe the Taliban are on the right track? The Times reports conflicts at mosques in the United States between Taliban supporters and critics. Isn't it likely that "the people of Afghanistan" are also divided, some supporting the Taliban and bin Laden, some not? Why are Afghanistan's neighbors—especially Pakistan—so worried that the influence of the Taliban will fuel Islamic fundamentalist uprisings in the region? And even in a time when everyone under the sun is ready to co-opt the Holocaust, doesn't Ansary's reference to the concentration camps strike a grotesquely false note?

The truth doesn't come packaged like this, for consumption that requires no thought. A good place to start digging is a book published last year by Yale University Press, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. The author, Ahmed Rashid, is a journalist who has covered Afghanistan for many years.

Rashid reminds us—no one in Washington seems to remember—that initially U.S. policymakers supported the Taliban. And while strategic calculations—such as the notion that the Taliban would be helpful to U.S. interests as a thorn in the side of Iran—were paramount, Rashid makes it clear that U.S. business interests were also involved, particularly in a spectacularly ambitious plan for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, to be built by the American company Unocal.

next page... |  1 of 4

September (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45