<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Ahmed Rashid's disappointing descent into repackaging</title>
		<description>Discuss Ahmed Rashid's disappointing descent into repackaging</description>
		<link>http://www.viewpointonline.net/ahmed-rashids-disappointing-descent-into-repackaging.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 19:48:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.viewpointonline.net/feed/com_content/1708/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://www.viewpointonline.net/ahmed-rashids-disappointing-descent-into-repackaging.html#comment-4118</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Disclaimer first: I have not read the book and I only want to comment on the review of the book. I will buy the book but based on the review alone I find myself closer to Ahmed Rashid's thinking than Mr. Taqi critique. Ahmed Rashid from the very beginning has advocated a sort of good Taliban and bad Taliban theory. His distinction is based on different nature of conflicts for afghan Taliban and Pak Taliban and he has always been harsh on Pak Taliban but considers Afghan Taliban more a resistance movement rather that a terrorist movement. His distinction is based on reality in Afghanistan. Looking at the Afghan history and the historical accounts of the afghan resistance from the East India company days, the resistance always relied on religion to gather people around it. It was never based on Afghan nationalism alone religion was always the pivot. So the Afghan Taliban rely on religion to rally people around against the current US occupation, which is not any different in nature than the British attempts to colonize Afghanistan. Though there are many caveats that cannot be ignored but broadly that is the gist of Ahmed Rashid’s arguments for the last several years. That element no matter how abhorrent to some commentators has some validity and based on that Rashid makes the distinction frequently in his articles and books. The Taliban movement in Pakistan is a simple religious fundamental movement and has no nationalist goals. Mr. Taqi writes well and he appears to borrow a whole lot from the Pukhtoon Nationalism of the ANP variety tinged with some abstract leftist and liberal thoughts. In other words, he is unable to figure out where he stands politically. Is he a Pukhtoon Nationalist or a liberal of a Leftist? Hard to tell from his various article. He often takes a hardline ignoring the ground realities. Harshly put, he is not able to moderate his own views. He views moderate and often well-constructed views of Ahmed Rashid sort of unacceptable. He is upset that Ahmed Rashid only wrote a page and half on Benazir as if Benazir deserved more in a book about the afghan situation. Benazir had in the past supported army approach towards Taliban and held Gen. Babar in high regard as he was her link to the army and Taliban. She would soon be a footnote in the Pakistan history and Ahmed Rashid has understood it better than Mr. Taqi. Pakistan army behaves exactly like any army in any country where democratic institutions are weak. There is nothing unusual about it grabbing of resources and unfair share in budget etc. These are valid but tired arguments. Even the US military with firmly established democratic institutions in the country, takes up more than 40% of the budget. There are many such examples and there is nothing unique in Pakistan army’s behavior. Once we understand that it becomes whole lot easier to understand what the army’s motives are and where it s headed. Ahmed Rashid’s complaint is that Pakistani politicians have not correctly analyzed the Pakistan army and failed to take opportunities when they were presented to them. I see that a reasonable argument. Mr. Taqi’s criticism of that is based on his own inflexibility. Often some folks on the liberal side show the same inflexibility that we see from the religious mullahs. Mullah’s inflexibility is somewhat explainable because he does not have enough education to understand different point of views but the same inflexibility from the educated liberals is simply inexcusable because it shows that despite education, they too carry the mullah mindset. Will write more as I get time…]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.viewpointonline.net/ahmed-rashids-disappointing-descent-into-repackaging.html#comment-4118</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
