I just watched a very good documentary on PBS. I highly recommend watching it online. Some key points:
- While good, it was not particularly groundbreaking: the problems of child-indoctrination have been publicized for many years, as have the severe security challenges posed by the Pakistani Taliban’s advance into the “settled” areas of Pakistan. Even knowing they will, people should be surprised by anything in this video. But they will be anyway, so I’m glad Frontline made it.
- The two best friends, one of whom wants to join the Taliban and the other wants to join the Army, each of whom promises to kill the other should their paths cross later—that was poignant. To say the least.
- I’m curious if or how Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy secured informed consent to interview many of these children on film, or if that is even a valid concern here. I truly wonder (and hope against) whether she put them in danger by filming them, especially their faces.
- I am intrigued that Ms. Obaid-Chinoy was able to get a tour of the devastated areas of Bajaur. Journalists are not permitted into these areas without the Army’s permission. Also, she completely glossed over the sectarian angle to the fighting there: Bajaur is one of the only Shia-majority areas in Western Pakistan.
- I’m still amazed at how many of the kids had the names of famous Durrani kings of Afghanistan.
- I had seen the video of the Taliban guys shooting at the drone in Orakzai in December. I didn’t know Frontline would include it in their broadcast (and kind of sell it as an exclusive, which it was not).
- A friend sent in this question over IM while we were both watching: “so…. can i say that they say they prey on the poor and offer them food and education is not much different than the US army?” I balked at that, since the two groups—the U.S. Army and the Pakistani Taliban—are fundamentally different from a moral, ethical, and operational point of view. In fact, I find that more remarkable about the Taliban than the Army, as it seems they are recruiting the way all volunteer organizations do. But we don’t like thinking of the Taliban as a volunteer organization, or what that portends for the job we have to do there.
- Nevertheless, my friend’s followup comment was deeply insightful: “i’m serious. are we all that different? we all defend what we have.” That we do, and it’s something I really wish the U.S. policy establishment would pay more attention to.
Anyway, it was really good, and quite thought-provoking. I applaud Ms. Obaid-Chinoy for highlighting the disturbing images (like that ruined school in Swat, or the leveled village in Bajaur) that residents of Pakistan have been assaulted with for the last two years. And ignored. Indeed, the weird lack of urgency that is only just now being replaced with mild panic in Pakistani society is one of the most confusing aspects of the entire Taliban situation. And that is something Ms. Obaid-Chinoy didn’t have a chance, it seems, to explore very much. I find that just as worrying as the Taliban’s technical prowess—why has it only taken until the militants come within a few hours of Islamabad that people seem to want to do something? And could it be too late without widespread catastrophic fighting?
{ 4 comments }
“Nevertheless, my friend’s followup comment was deeply insightful: “i’m serious. are we all that different? we all defend what we have.”
Following that logic, the British Army = the Vietcong= the IDF=the Taliban = the Crips= the U.S. Army= the Zulus = the SS = the Sioux = the Kamikaze = the Vikings …ad infinitum.
What one fights for and how has greater moral bearing than the common denominator of fighting.
Well, yes, I like slippery slopes too, but be mature for a minute. He was saying that, at a fundamental level, people are people and they tend to defend what they have. It’s the same reason many people don’t like admitting that the South might have had morally and ethically legitimate reasons for fighting the Civil War because we’ve chosen to make it about slavery.
Blah blah blah, it’s all a rich tapestry. His point remains sound: the people we are fighting think they have the force of God on their side, and therefore have righteousness, and all the other moral and ethical components we add to our own wars. That’s an important realization — not that we must agree with it, but merely recognize that it exists and must be accounted for.
Josh, I think your friend’s point of fighting for what people have is an important compliment to the concept of fighting for what people want. I mean, you’re welcome from Captain Obvious over here, but the doc showed a really interesting dichotomy in the Taliban’s thinking. During the interview with the “child recruiter” (I feel dirty for using that term, I don’t know why) he plainly said there wasn’t a need to fight the Pakistani Army because they had been viewed as Muslims. However, once the fighting did start, the Taliban started demanding cultural and legal shifts toward what they favored, thus indirectly admitting they did see a “lacking” in Pakistan that they want to “correct.” Am I blowing that aspect out of proportion? If not, which do you feel is more motivating to them?
Oh, and yes, I also see that very dichotomy as being a facet of any war where ideology is concerned, as in the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. Yes, we retaliate because of September 11th, but we also want democracy to be left in our wake, maybe/sorta. I fear that each side is played up depending on convenience, but the religious overtones of the Taliban make them appear just as fierce on both sides of the coin. I’ll stop using the coin metaphor now.
Comments on this entry are closed.