Why Did She Bother?
Janine di Giovanni, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, took a trip—apparently by herself—to the NWFP and FATA areas of Pakistan. While the writing itself is excellent, the gist of the story was somewhat lacking:
- Peshawar was once a sort of Islamic Casablanca, positively riddled with diplomats, aid workers, and journalists in 2001, but is now “in a warzone.”
- The Taliban in Pakistan is a single, monolithic entity that pays hefty sums to independent cells that carrying out bombings.
- Despite all the constant repetitions of how dangerous the area is, Ms. di Giovanni wanders around, arranging meetings with Taliban overlords, while being an obviously uncovered Western woman.
- British “military men” obviously not in disguise travel through Quetta and Karachi unmolested.
- The “tribals” did not know what jihad was before 9/11 happened.
- The division between religious moderates and extremists is widening.
- Normal people are normal people and don’t much care for the extremists.
I’m left wondering… why did she bother? Apart from the curious—and conspicuously unspoken—insight that a white woman can wander around one of the most dangerous places on Earth not just uncovered but unmolested amongst Taliban strongholds in Karachi, Quetta, and Peshawar, there isn’t anything here that hasn’t been said a dozen times before, and with far less sensationalism. That isn’t to say anything is wrong, though there were many comments, like the man complaining jihad is foreign the area, that I wish she had followed up on.
But really, it comes off as her doing her best Sebastian Junger impression. Which isn’t necessarily immoral… it just isn’t necessarily insightful either. There are more interesting stories in Northwestern Pakistan than “the Taliban is advancing”—or at least, more nuanced. Nathan’s look at how the IMU might be making inroads there, despite the fighting last year supposedly sparked by IMU militants (and the Rashidian charge that they are “racially different and savage”) is one example; another is this Kings of War analysis on the renewed offensive into the tribal areas:
Which brings me to my question of whether this action is a realization that the external drumbeat of criticism has reached the point where the government needs to act, whether the different players in government acted in concert, and whether a particular internal agenda is being served and how? Or did the threat of instability amidst rising threats to Peshawar just become too great? It’s never one thing or another, but I’m curious to see what the tipping points and breakdown of priorities were. Though it is questionable if we’ll ever really know for sure.
And so on. While again, this isn’t shockingly new to critical analysis of Pakistan’s issues with the border areas, it is solid skepticism of the reports emerging from the region, and great jumping off point for future analysis. The fighting was apparently meant to undermine Mangal Bagh, the leader of Lashkar-i Islam—a group nominally associated with Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehrik-i Taliban… but despite Mehsud’s withdrawal from the peace talks, there remains no actual evidence this connection is anything more than bluster.
So while Ms. di Giovanni certainly gets big brownie points for, you know, actually going there and reporting, it is perhaps telling she was unable to deliberately say anything new. Her report has some intriguing subcontext, but otherwise she said nothing everyone else hasn’t already said (it is surprising how incomplete many of these interviews, not just here but in many stories from the area, feel when printed). Considering these stories are all months and years old, this could itself be indicative of a grander story. But that would require follow-up in person, not just two week reporter trips. It is tough to do anything in depth over such a short period of time.
SIDE NOTE: Is General Muhammed Alam Khattak, the commander of the Frontier Corps presently trying to transform them from police into counterinsurgency, a decedent of Khushal Khan Khattak, the famous Pashtun anti-British pacifist? If so, I don’t know if that’s ironic or sad. Or neither. Or both.
Stumble it! |
Tags: Media, Pakistan.
Posted by Joshua Foust on July 3rd, 2008
Permalink | Trackback | Comments: 10
Comments
Time: 7/3/2008, 10:06 am
This is an odd criticism of a general media story. Her insights might be hot news to Vanity Fair readers, some of whom might not be able to find Pakistan on a map.
More generally, newspapers would be far thinner if Editors tossed all stories reporting the blindingly obvious.
Time: 7/3/2008, 10:13 am
An interesting follow-up would be Janine di Giovanni wandering around Watts, or similar areas in NYC or Detroit. This might give a different perspective on what are “the most dangerous places on Earth.”
Time: 7/3/2008, 3:26 pm
Fabius, I’m sympathetic to your first comment to a degree, however, I highly doubt Vanity Fair’s readers use that magazine as their only source of news. Assuming they read the New York Times or Washington Post as well (which is not an unfair assumption), they already know this stuff. And for those who don’t already know about the place, they are not only unlikely to be swayed by such a piece, they are far more likely to be misled because of how it was written.
That is the point I am getting at.
As for your second comment, I would also add Anacostia in SouthEast DC.
Time: 7/7/2008, 8:51 am
In the ‘Side Note’ you asked: Is General Muhammed Alam Khattak, the commander of the Frontier Corps presently trying to transform them from police into counterinsurgency, a decedent of Khushal Khan Khattak, the famous Pashtun anti-British pacifist?
—
A. Khushal Khattak was no pacifist. He fought—at least against Orangzaib’s reign over what is today’s ‘frontier’ region. His poems impatiently invoke ‘the sword’ and ‘fighting courage’. B. He did not encounter the Brits in his land. From what I know, he was dead at least half a century before they marched. C. You might be confusing him with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Badshah Khan/Frontier Gandhi). D. ‘Khattak’ is a Pashtoon ‘qawm’. Thus while General Alam is a member or the qawm, it does not necessarily mean he is a decedent of Khushal Khan.
Time: 7/7/2008, 9:50 pm
Qumandan, this is the danger of writing when jet lagged — you make stupid mistakes. You’re right, I conflated the two. I have no idea why, though I know why Khattak was in my forebrain (I’m working on a post about non-military ways of establishing control over the tribal areas, and the ways Aurangzeb undercut Khattak after failing to defeat him militarily I think is instructive).
I really have no excuse, save severe fatigue. I regret the error.
Time: 7/11/2008, 1:50 am
I knew you were mixing the two–so I jumped on it. Like when a bird finds a whole in the rice bag.
I have reservations around musings that seek to finds ways of “establishing control over the tribal areas.” But that doesn’t cut from anticipation of your post on Orangzaib and Khushal Khan.
Time: 7/11/2008, 9:51 am
Qumandan,
Please keep pointing out holes in what I say. It keeps me honest (and is actually what I love about blogging, as this kind of thing makes me much better at building and framing arguments).
You reservations are not out of line. Perhaps I exaggerate when I say “control.” I’m thinking more of a central power building a constructive, collaborative relationship with the tribes, which is not the same as exercising sovereignty. That make more sense?
Time: 8/2/2008, 3:12 am
Firstly, General Mohammad Alam Khan Khattak is a fine soldier.
Secondly Khoshal Khan Khattak, chief of Khattak tribal nation was not just some famous insurgent rather lived and fought as general in Mogul emperor Shah Jehan (builder of Taj Mehal ) army for most of his life.
He was a philosopher, just commander in-chief, strategist, master swordsman, a medic and a poet. Praised by some British & western scholars as Shakespeare of Afghans/ Pashtuns.
Some of his conquests west of the empire for Shah Jehan empire namely Badakhshan vice versa are to his credit whom Moguls could not conquer by themselves previously, recognized by emperor as strategic military brain.
He was loyal to Shah Jehan & later being found of his leadership abilities are well documented. It was Aurengzeb who ironically was a religious fanatic and brutal dictator. Brutalities of his rule is not just retold among Afghans/ Pashtuns but also hindus who imprisoned Khoshal baba hence invoking the Afghan pride. May I also mention Aurengzeb is still admired among some minority clerics for his shrude vision and take on our religion.
Aurengzeb claimed the throne after murdering his brothers & putting Shah Jehan being bars. There were many bloody battles which came afterwards some eventhough numerically the balance never existed though charisma of Khoshal and his Afridi, Momand tribal chieves counterfeited.
After his friends death and reluctance on behalf of some tribes to unitedly defy the oppressor he retire from battlefield into Afridi (Tribal cousins of Khattaks) country he started putting ink to his thoughts. His zeal and fervour on battlefield when he led from front his Khattaks transformed into poetry. Khoshal is still revered among not just Khattaks but all Afghans as his criticism was that of a passionate nationalist with expectations.
The fact is, if your a keen history observant you’ll know when any empire starts quarrels in this part of Asia it’s historically deem doomed. Only ones who thrived a bit longer were who started recruiting from among the tribes and economically benefiting them. Logical comprehension when one read real history instead of jumping to conclusion on first bits of info revealed to them.
It was true beginning of the end for Mogul monarchy proving the famous quote ‘ Afghan land is graveyard of all empires who dare underestimate them ‘. So drawing angles on how to administer or control region with such history by using ‘ non-military means ‘ as it was put is not so simple a task rather daunting exercise with severe consequences.
Sensible logical solution to quagmire, if you can muster any sense at all from historical past of the region which has repeated itself on numerous times is try befriending the people in real sense of the word.
Time: 9/9/2008, 3:09 am
Att: Khoshal Khan Khattak
If Khoshal Khan was a philosopher, just commander in-chief, strategist, master swordsman, a medic and a poet, can you address me any book which is belong to his rationalistic work? lol its a joke he was just a tribal rebel
Time: 9/9/2008, 3:17 am
Khushal Khan just wrote a few folkloric poems.here is a few example of his poetry.
Khushal Khan Khattak (b.1613-1690) wrote in Pashtu during the reign of the Mongol emperors in the seventeenth century. He lived in the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains. Here are some of his poems. His first one illustrating how he feels about his fellow Pashtuns.
Of the Pathans that are famed in the land of Roh,
Now-a-days are the Mohmands, the Bangash, and the Warrakzais, and the Afridis.
The dogs of the Mohmands are better than the Bangash,
Though the Mohmands themselves are a thousand times worse than the dogs.
The Warrakzais are the scavengers of the Afridis,
Though the Afridis, one and all, are but scavengers themselves.
This is the truth of the best of the dwellers in the land of Pathans,
Of those worse than these who would say that they were men?
No good qualities are there in the Pathans than are now living:
All that were of any worth are imprisoned in the grave.
This indeed is apparent to all who know them.
He of whom the Moghuls say, “He is loyal to us”,
God forbid the shame of such should be concealed!
Let the Pathans drive all thought of honour from their hearts:
For these are ensnared by the baits the Moghuls have put for them.
From C. Biddulph, Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Being Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak (London, 1890)
Write a comment