Taliban could have been our “best partner” to fight terrorism: Globe reporter
By Michael Petrou - Friday, October 14, 2011 - 3 Comments
Globe and Mail reporter Graeme Smith had this to say during a panel discussion convened by This Magazine to discuss a decade of international intervention in Afghanistan:
“Afghanistan had a functioning country in some ways before we came in in 2001. That’s a qualified statement: the Taliban had been relatively successful in establishing a regime and you could argue that if you were looking for a partner to fight terrorism—a partner to take on al-Qaeda and make sure that the country would remain stable with some kind of rule of law—in 2001, your best partner would have been the Taliban.”
Afghanistan was neither functioning nor stable prior to 2001. It was a wasteland that at least three million Afghans had fled, seeking refuge in Pakistan and Iran. Many more were internally displaced. I saw thousands of them in the fall of 2001. They lived and died in shallow pits covered with scraps of cloth and plastic. They hadn’t run from American bombs; they ran from the Taliban. Continue…
-
War between India and Pakistan, and other bad things that could happen if the West leaves Afghanistan
By Paul Wells - Monday, November 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM - 27 Comments
Steve Coll, The New Yorker‘s main writer on the mess in South Asia, lists the very bad things that could happen if NATO and affiliated troops pack up and go home too early from Afghanistan. This is essentially the position Colleague Coyne defended last week in our town hall in Halifax: That if you think it’s bad now, just imagine how much worse it could get. Everyone who watched the show last week will know that’s not where I am these days, but Coll, whose spectacular book Ghost Wars is an indispensable history of the wreckage of the last 30 years in Afghanistan and Pakistan, must be reckoned a good guesser on what next year’s wreckage could look like.














