It was called the 1990's, specifically 1996 to 2001. The Taliban ruled the majority of Afghanistan during this time period, and what was the result? A failed state (probably the worst in the world), mass starvation, vast poverty, strict shariah law, skyrocketing illness and illiteracy, floggings, stonings, beheadings, thousands of executions, the total subjugation of women, the crushing of any semblance of religious or political freedom, the destruction of any sign of modernity or technology, constant bloody war with everyone who opposed them, and an alliance with Al Qaeda (allowing the terrorist group to operate freely in the country and culminating in something called 9/11). Duh. The author really thinks that we should give all of that another go? This article is utter folly, of a dangerous sort.

This is actually a great idea- if it can be implemented. Indeed, the best way to defeat totalitarian ideologies is to put them through the test of governance because that is the only way one can rupture the bubble of aura where those ideologues live and sell empty promises and dreams to non-sophisticated and kindhearted populace. During wars, hearts and minds are usually won or lost not over well thought development plans but rather over slogans catering to primitive existential instincts including religion and tribal affiliation. When those ideologues have a chance to govern they will make mistakes; and people will quickly realize that those ideologues are not prophets or geniuses as they imagined them but rather humans with their own pitfalls. Those ideologues, like Taliban, may be uncorrupted but that is insufficient since governance is about competence and acute planning more than anything else. I think that the author proposal should be taken seriously while making every effort to look for practical ways to implement such an idea.

I see this as ultimately like what happened after the first Iraq war with the Kurds. We told saddam that there was a no fly zone and "left the military option on the table". Honestly, it had it's moments of success and utter failures as well. this really isnt a novel idea, it's simply repackaged. Ultimately we would NEVER go back in in force, Osama would clearly have a free reign in the south, and Pakistan could go back to worrying about only India...oh, wait, no, we actually need to be engaged within Pakistan for the next billion years. We need Afghanistan, it is imperative, for our relations with India, china, Pakistan, Iran and ultimately the Muslim world. We NEED a success. We can't afford to turn our tails and run..which is how it will be spun in the muslim world, a victory for AlQaeda. So then all those uneducated people in the Muslim world who really dont understand nuance, because they have never been educated properly (much like middle America), well, they are gonna go running into the arms of extremists. Afghanistan is important, more than we know perhaps, we need to stay and finish the job, even if it means establishing a 51st state in central asia. Not serious of course...but I think we have neglected the region for far too long, 10 years of war isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, we need to be patient, this is a 20 year deal at least.

Afghanistan might be much better off if it were not one ‘country’ at all but simply an area within which different tribal groups could subsist, amalgamate, disperse, and fight each other if necessary. The word ‘nation’ derives from the stem of the Latin, nasci - be born, and means a group of people closely identified by common descent, language, culture, and occupation of the same lands to the extent they can be identified as distinct. Modern usage, with its insistence on territory and borders that coop people up like battery hens, is a source of considerable strife since the establishment of borders often completely ignores the local realities that existed before. You have only to look at the borders of countries like Libya or Saudi Arabia to realise they were drawn with a ruler and pencil by distant arbitrators seeking to break the area down into bits the better to manage and manipulate it. Much is said about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan but it doesn’t mean the same to everyone and to many it doesn’t mean anything at all.

The coherent evolution of human societies demands flexibility and that means self-generated, on-going change. Listen to Heraclitus 2500 years passed: Things that are distinct from one another, or qualities that are opposed, have no permanent existence. They are transitory stages in a perpetual flux.

Just think of all the things that would have been better if the US had left Iraq alone, and then extend the thought to include the things that might have been better. Saddam was not immortal and it was hardly necessary for the US to authorise his destruction to prove it. The US is responsible for the current turmoil and death in the Arab world, not because she instigated it directly but because she created and maintained the chains from which its peoples are now attempting to break.

The lesson to be learned from all this is: Leave things alone, don’t meddle. As a personal contribution, I would also add: Don’t conjure threats where they do not exist or you may summon them from the caves of Hell.

Saleem Ali fabricated a lie to support his argument to let Taliban rule return.

Pakistan is NOT terrified by creation of a Taliban government in Afghanistan. Pakistani government is the one that created first Taliban government in 1996. Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in 2004, 'Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban'. UN report on Bhutto killing released on 4/15/10 confirmed this fact when it noted that "The PAKISTANI MILITARY ORGANIZED AND SUPPORTED THE TALIBAN TO TAKE CONTROL OF AFGHANISTAN IN 1996“.

And Pakistani government is the one that is sustaining Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. That is why previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly sponsoring four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money, diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Saleem Ali also has to know that Taliban can and will discard any promise tomorrow, it makes today to gain power. Afterall Adm Mullen had following to say about America’s primary ally in its fight against terrorism, to the foreign news media on 1/13/2011: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again it, [Pakistan] is the epicenter of terrorism in the world right now. It is absolutely critical that the safe havens in Pakistan get shut down. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without that. It’s not just Haqqani Network anymore, or Al Qaeda or TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), the Afghan Taliban, or LET (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba), it’s all of them working together.”

I am Muslim; the solution to the problem is the problem. And the problem is thinking that by might you can compel the force of human spirit to do what is not in its best interest. Let those people who have not tried to compel Americans to act against their best interest, to their own chosen path. Folklore is what we as a nation are good at manufacturing or should I say urban or suburban or bubba legend or as the so-called intelligentsia say narrative. We as a community should restrain the hand of our aggressive government with complicity in so much of the global crap going on .Al-Islam is the best guidance for humanity and human thought, these silly power based attacks on Quranic knowledge proves the big point the fear of global leadership to have a sober discussion with non-sell outs in the free market place......we know why.

Okay, this is wrong on a number of levels, both in terms of old and recent history.

First of all, conservative Islam is not the same as Taliban. Taliban-style Islam did not exist in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion. The way it got there was that the Americans needed to launder money so that it could be used to buy weapons for the Afghan resistance without leading back to the United States. The way they chose to do this was through Saudi Arabia, which used religious organizations for moving the money. These organizations both provided the money to the Afghans in the refugee camps and proselytized the Saudi's extremely conservative Wahhabi Islam. That's how an extremely fundamentalist Islam got there - it wasn't there to begin with.

Second, the Taliban cannot be negotiated with. Pakistan tried that in the last few years as the Taliban started to expand outside of Pakistan's tribal areas. What happened was a pattern of the Pakistan conceding territory to Taliban rule with the condition that they take it and go no further, and the Taliban immediately beginning suicide attacks and starting to encroach on the next territory. That's what it took for Pakistan to finally start fighting them in earnest.

Anybody who has looked at the ideology of these sorts of fundamentalists could see this coming - their ideology is based on a 7th century reading of the Koran, which allows them to lie through their teeth to their enemies so long as it moves them towards their goal, and has them in constant warfare with their perceived enemies.

So, there is just no way this could possibly work. All it would do is cause suffering.

"...start letting the Islamists try their hand at governing. "

Theocracies--such hands have only ever been eternally stained with the blood of so many innocents(not just Muslims).

Arab women must be let free. Their children, free to fly kites. And all Arab men, women and children, free to stand proud with the same truth and knowledge that will ultimately set free the entire planet--ALL of humanity must have freedom. I would gladly die for that as so many have.

It's too late for the Taliban. Their time is up. They're going down.

Saleem,

This is old wine in a leaky new bottle!

Afghanistan was the Islamic Republic of Talibanistan for a large part of the 1990's. The Taliban could not govern the country and it fell out of favor after forming a government. However, the Taliban could not be marginalized or overpowered because the unsavory Taliban were seen as an asset by Pakistan. The Taliban were nurtured by other nations, like Pakistan.

Such states, like the ones you propose, are not self-sustainable unless they become rent seeking states. I wonder who will scaffold your new radical republic, from the outside, at what cost and for what purpose?

Americans care because Taliban control in Afghanistan led to an al-Qaeda safe haven in the country, which in turn led to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. I don't want to see another Taliban regime (like the one in the 1990's), where terrorist organizations can enter, train, and commit attacks. I also don't want to see the Taliban and its like-minded allies continue to spread their ideology into Pakistan and beyond, further destabilizing the region. We don't need to take sides in the Pakistani-Indian rivalry, we just need to do what is best for the U.S. and the region. What is best for the region is not a Pakistani puppet regime, nor is it a Taliban-controlled area in Afghanistan and the Pakistani FATA regions.

My point is that the author's solution to the problem (let's let the Taliban take over!) is exactly what led to the U.S. and NATO invading the country in the first place. Taliban rule in the 1990's was horrendous, led to warfare and bloodshed, and allowed al-Qaeda to operate freely and stage attacks against our people. His solution to the problem was actually the catalyst to the problem.

And no matter how many times he comments and tells us to read the entire article, it doesn't change anything. The issue is not that I didn't read the whole article; the issue is that I did read the whole article and found it a wanting and dangerous thought experiment doomed to failure if implemented.

This is highly outrageous an argument ! wonder how such serious forums like the FP allow publishing these kinds of absurd, irrational and stereotypical arguments.
Many nutters out there peddle the Pakistani establishment's line desperately seeking the re-conquer of Afghanistan through their proxy forces once the US leave Afghanistan. The pakistani press is doing that job well. But it is too unfortunate, as well shameful, that such reprehensible ideas of treating the millions of population as guinea pigs are disseminated through respected western sources.
The plain truth is: not FATA or Afghan border , the real bastion of Islamic fundamentalism is the core region of pakistan - Punjab. If the international community has gone mad enough to do such experimentation then that would be the best place. The real problem lies in Rawalpindi - the GHQ , where the disproportionately fattened military has a monopoly of political power and whose strategic calculus still contains Jihadi forces as its integral part for gaining regional and domestic influence. Afghan border and Tribal areas is just a proven absurd excuse - this is over investigated an issue.

Quoting dubious surveys, like the influence of religious parties in Tribal area to peddle the pakistani argument is simply ridiculous. Can you name a single individual worth the name associated with the PTI in tribal area ?

This is totally un feasible and unrealistic rather childish suggestion..
IIn the first place Taliban can never be made bound that they will expand their activities to the neighboring states and areas
Secondly the migration of people to the choose region is too ridiculous a suggestion
The region should not be made center of further experiments

Dear Saleem
So please make such proposals for Lawhore which is the true bastion of Islamic fundamentalism, the nerve-center of such philosophies.

Before I made such harsh comment, I read your article twice, and even give it a serious thought to see if this is sarcasm, and came to the conclusion that it is serious a suggestion.

I must say, I am deeply offended by this. Intelligent enough you're to understand the real reasons behind what's happening in FATA and WHY? Pray tell us what national and international agendas the people in FATA have ?

Frankly, the US has bred so much ill will in the Muslim world that I doubt much can be done to ease tensions. I submit that the US should simply pull all of its troops out of the rest of the world and bring them home. America First brings out the fangs in humanitarians, neocons, interventionists, and certain business concerns, but our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq have produced nothing of value. You have a kleptocracy in each country, and a restive population. Now people will argue that letting the Taliban have its way would only repeat the events that led to 9/11. I counter that by focusing on US security without the phony pandering that leads to open borders, we could keep the rabble at bay. For those who worry about what happens to other nations and their people when the US leaves, I say if they cannot take care of themselves, then no one can.

Professor Ali would do well to learn more about Afghan culture, history, and society before he makes the kind of assumptions displayed in his article.

As a non-Pashtun, Persian-speaking, Shi’a Isma’ili Afghan, it would be so easy for me to s...upport this ‘solution’. After all, it would mean that the Islamists among the Pashtuns can live under their own tribal, shari’a-infused tyranny and leave the rest of us alone to recapture the glory of our culture and civilisation. But the days of the Persian empires, the Turkic khanates, and the Pashtun emirates are long gone, and for hundreds of years the Turkic, Persian, and Pashtun people of Afghanistan have been compatriots. We weren’t forced into diversity by European colonial architects. Afghanistan’s diversity evolved endogenously, and so we have no excuse to hate it.

Because I have accepted this reality, I couldn’t possibly accept the idea of some of my compatriots, even if they are from a different ethnic group, being subjected to the uncontrovertibly evil practises of the Taliban. Anyone who has witnessed Taliban ‘justice’ or spoken to its victims will understand what I am talking about. It is far too simplistic and dangerously ignorant to say that if a majority of the Pashtun tribal belt population wants Taliban rule, they should have it. Any referendum or polling would not provide an accurate picture of the wishes of the women and religious minorities among them. Furthermore, just because a majority of the men in a community vote to effectively enslave their women does not mean they should be allowed to do so. The small group of Taliban supporters that exist in Afghanistan are misguided, criminal-minded fools who are serving as an obstacle to the greatness of our civilisation.

Professor Ali points to the examples of Islamist groups that have stabilised some of the lawless frontier areas and given them a ‘pristine sense of order’. It is true that they have solved the problem of lawlessness but they have simply replaced it with the institutionalisation and codification of their own crimes against humanity. The argument that established Taliban rule would stem the flow of funds to the opium industry is also most likely correct, but that is only a valid point if you believe that the rights of our people are a worthy sacrifice for the West’s ‘War on Drugs’.

Finally, there are two massive practical impediments to all of this. Professor Ali’s argument is based on the idea that pro-Islamists can just migrate to the Tribal Belt and secularists and moderates can just migrate out. Leaving aside the fact that the women of Afghanistan are not yet empowered to make these decisions unilaterally, the idea of dividing Afghanistan into two states (one Persian, one Pashtun) was debated in the early days of the transitional administration. It became clear that such a plan could never work because Afghans refuse to abandon their claims on their ancestral homes. Furthermore, it’s not all about Islam. A majority of Taliban laws and practises are based on Pashtun tribal codes rather than actual Shari’a, and where Qur’an-based Shari’a is found it is co-opted to reinforce those tribal codes. Hence, the decision for Afghanistan’s Pashtuns, regardless of their level of Islamic conservatism, over whether or not to migrate to the belt would be extremely conflicted. On the one hand, many Pashtuns (especially the large population in Kabul) are secularist. On the other hand, they live in an Afghanistan that has always functioned under a social contract underwritten by ethnic balance, and the removal and separation of so many of their tribal brethren would undermine this entire order.

The moral of the story is that Professor Ali’s article is just a further demonstration of how a lack of understanding of the complexities of Afghan society can have disastrous consequences in academic analysis and, worse, policy-making. This may be an unfair assumption for me to make (and if it is I sincerely apologise in advance), but I suspect that Ali’s arguments apply better from the perspective of Pakistanis and their relationship with their frontier areas and their Islamist groups. In Pakistan, where the Pashtun lands were only until this year known as the ‘Northwest Frontier Province’ and ‘Federally Administrated Tribal Areas’, it’s much easier for the people to think of the tribal belt as a cultural and demographic anomaly that can simply be cut off and left to its own devices. Unfortunately, the excessive use of the term ‘Af-Pak’ in popular media may have caused Ali to conflate these Pakistani perspectives with those of the Afghans, who have a fundamentally different relationship with the tribal belt and a fundamentally different kind of society.

The Taliban do NOT have "staying power" in Afghanistan.
The Taliban currently have "staying power" in Pakistan, because of high levels of Pakistani official support to them. The Taliban have factions as well, and Pakistanis just target those factions that are less loyal to them and claim to be "helping out" in routing the Taliban.

A bad idea, indeed. Has anyone asked the Pakhtun's, please?

Where will this semi-autonomous region lie? Half in Eastern and Southern Afghanistan and half in Pakistan's Pashtun areas? Since Kandahar will surely be part of this region (being the 'spiritual birthplace and headquarters') of the Taliban, will the Pashtun areas of Balochistan form part of it, and has anyone asked the Baloch who are already in rebellion? Will it then extend from Chaman in Balochistan in the South all the way North to Dir and Bajaur in FATA? What effect would this have on the hitherto peaceful Chitral and already not-so-peaceful (because of an engineered influx of Pashtuns during Ziaul Haque's time) Gilgit?

And what would the quantum of 'autonomy' be? That the Taliban would be allowed to flog and decapitate people through Committees for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice but will not have a standing army? If they can be helped along by the OIC, would they be allowed to develop diplomatic relations with other States?

The example of the partition of Sudan has been given: once you 'partition' Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (i.e., Pakistan) do you divide the resources of the country equitably? How many of our over 120 bums will go to the Taliban State? How many tanks and artillery pieces? What will happen to the properties of those who opt to go over to the other side? Will a Resettlement Department on the lines of the scandalous one that was set up after the petition of the Sub-Continent be put up? Suppose more people want to get out than in?

There's lots more but have to run ...

Mayhap Blackwill's 'solution' whilst being equally dangerous, is more doable?

Kamran Shafi

The idea should be titled as "Islamic Republic of Nonsense" as we already have tried it when we chose a religious identity by partitioning a territory naming it Pakistan. The result is failure, now another experience on the same lines will be a far more great disaster.

And how greater population of Pakistan (especially of its major part as per share in resources and Nonsense aka Punjab) can be resettled in such an Islamic Emirate, as the radicalization project has its roots based in Punjab, It can be measured from two recent incidents, when Provincial Governor was killed for speaking his mind against a discriminatory law against minorities and an American diplomat or spy, whatever you call it was detained for dual murder charges, look at the resistance and public opinion in Punjab and compare it to other parts.

It was Chief Minister of Punjab, a closet Taliban who publicly pleaded Taliban not to attack in Punjab as he thought they have common goals and objectives.

Haven't we tried this already? When al-Qaeda attacked the US it was the principle of Nanawatai that prevented the Tailiban from handing over Osama bin Laden and his group. Which lead to the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan today. Let's say for discourse we do round up most of the hard core radicals and give them their own little slice of 7th century 'draconian heaven.'

The underlying theme of your argument is that, given time, the common people living in this little 'draconian heaven' will come to realize the Tailiban will not be able to provide for the common people and because, "Islamists are also quite amenable to the process of a referendum as a policy tool..", they will vote out the Tailiban. The problem with this as you point out, "Unlike Egypt's Muslim Brothers, the Taliban are not willing to endorse the establishment of a democracy in Afghanistan." I just don't see in 4 or 5 years the Tailiban saying, "Well boys we gave it a try and it didn't work. The people want us out, so lets give someone else have a go at it." It took extensive bombing and military might to force them out in 2001. In fact, I don't even see a referendum ever taking place. Even if it did, wouldn't that brings us right back to were we are now?

"When you're dealing with absolutist ideologies, sometimes a divorce is the only solution possible." Here your proposing that anyone who wished not to live in this 'draconian heaven' will be able to leave, "those in the frontier who would prefer a secular or modernist Islamic state should be allowed to migrate to the other side." What about the women? Under the Taliban women are property, subject to the whims of the elder male of whatever family they live in. I just don't see the males in Taliban letting their women (who don't wish to live in this 'draconian heaven') go to the other side. We both know it would never happen.

The next point I find contradictive. "They could no longer earn money through the drug trade -- currently, the Taliban encourage opium cultivation as an instrument of war, earning an estimated $400 million per year -- because one of the claims to piety during their heyday was a ban on opium." I just don't see how one evil is justification for another. I feel the 'physical and psychological' enslavement of a soul to be a greater evil than war. It destroys families and runs counter to the teaching of all people of the book. In fact, it entraps more Muslims than Christians or Jews. Please forgive me for not seeing the piety in this.

"...radical Islamists like the Taliban have traditionally had expansionary tendencies. They would need to reject international terrorism and give assurances to neighboring states that they would not intervene in those countries' territories." They have already shown that if given an inch, they will try to take a mile. Just ask the Pakistani military. They would love nothing more to detonate a dirty bomb in a major US city causing the deaths of a million or so people. This would give the US the justified reason to use it's own wmd's, which for some reason the world seems to have forgotten we have the biggest arsenal of. It would take the US less than 6 hours to completely eradicate all life forms in this area... from the smallest bug upwards by the use of neturon bombs. The rain would carry the radioactive material down into the streams and rivers killing and sickening everything it came into contact with. It would seep into the ground water for hundreds of miles around. Not a pretty picture.

I just don't see them agreeing to leave everyone alone if they did have their own little 7th century 'draconian heaven.' It is the fact that it didn't work before that bring us to the present. Thank you and may peace be upon you.

Let me do an Ad-hominem attack first
Saleem H. Ali seems just another (possibly..seemingly) Pak-American or some stealth jihadist/Ikhwan-type peddling Pak Army line(probably paid for it as well).First of all,most Islamists dont give a fig about any "human written stuff" much less any gentleman agreements with infidels.Even so-called "pro-US poodle" Pak Pres.Zardari openly said that the agreement with Nawaz Sharif(PML-N) is no Hadith,so take a hike! ;-) Now just extrapolate to what is going on in brain of fundoo Taliban/AQ types.We already know,any agreements with Islamists is not worth a paper it is written on.You can see Taqiya doctrine in practise though it is more used by Iranian clerics,the reliance of Taqiya is pretty rampant,convinient&acceptable to Islamists across the board.

Now let us dissect his crappy arguments:
First of all,bottomline of winning the war in Afghanistan is to turn Afghan Taliban also against Pakistan Army which they equally hate,but powerless to do so,since their families are living in Pakistan under watchful eyes of ruthless Pakistani intelligence.Also,Taliban shuras especially Afghan Taliban is penetrated by ISI stooges.The base of the argument is, "Taliban problem to US/West" can solved by disconnecting Taliban and Al-Qaeda.This is a huge blunder.Taliban&other local jihadist groups are proxies of Pakistan Army/LeT which from David Headley's interrogation also wants to hit Western targets.So in practise except the superficial coat&tie+shaved face...there is no clear distinction between goals of Al-Qaeda and Pakistan Army/LeT.Lashkar-e-Toiba and its affiliates are fully integrated into command structures of Pakistani military so,any type of contortionist explanations of difference between the two are solely confined to self-serving imagination of Washington think-tanks which have no basis in reality.Lazy group think is a particularly American think-tank disease even after 9/11.All the "out-of-box" thinking comes out of the same done-to-death paradigms.

The best course is "Plan B "forwarded by Blackwill which absolutely cannot be compared to this contradictory tripe "exit-plan".What he is suggesting is withdraw everything based on good-will of Taliban,coz they will fear B-52 which is *proven* to be absolutely incorrect.
We already did that.We *threatened* Taliban with bombing after 9/11 and then actually *went ahead and carried the threat out*.They didnt budge then,they wont budge now.And more over..most of Al-qaeda types are in Pakistan,If we get everything out of Afghanistan,Pakistan can comfortably house all its terror export products in Afghanistan and keep an innocent look on its face.That is *their* plan.Pakistan's militaristic foreign policy and so-called leverage is based on terrorism export.This is further consolidated by unconditional US-funding and Pakistanis somehow thinks that,they have some kind of entitlement to aid quotas from Great Satan&Evil Infidel Uncle.Pakistan suckered US into this ridiculous "surge" by promising a anvil to hammer strategy of US military.Now after the "surge",US military is completely beholden to supply-lines that flows through Pakistan.

Why Plan B is the best:
Contrary to popular chatter..Blackwill is not suggesting an actual partition of Afghanistan,just a tactical de-facto partition so that Taliban have independence(of safe haven) from Pakistan.Taliban then will turn on Pakistan Army and Pak Army will force to confront them.
It becomes a do or die situation for Pak Army.The Sourthern Afghanistan population support for Taliban will also get soften up by brutal rule of Taliban like happened in Swat etc.
For this to happen,it is in US interest to kill of so-called older-leaders and give leadership to more so-called "more radicalized" Taliban commanders..this is a euphemism for Taliban which are outside Pakistan Army control.For all practical purposes to US/West it doesnt mean a thing.There is no good Taliban and bad Taliban for US/West optic.

Bottomline is this is no easy task,we are in long haul against Islamic terrorists.US/West should tie up with similar minded countries like Russia,India

Articles like these show that the Taliban have to fight for total autonomy and self determination and can never negotiate with NATO and their Afghan puppets. The Imperialists and their lackeys are perpetually diabolical towards undermining the rule of Islam anywhere on earth.

And clearly the amoral, selfserving imperialists who spread prostitution and corruption everywhere they go in the name of economic progress and 'civilization' have lost favor in growing parts of Afghanistan.

The Partition of South Asia was a British plan to divide the peoples to the benefit of the British and Western global order. To no surprise, India became divided between 3 states- Pakistan, East Pakistan, and India. Pakistan and East Pakistan were divided by India, and the entire Muslim population of South Asia was divided into three weak groups all lesser than the Hindu mass in India. Quite an accomplishment.

All for Empire.

Saleem Ali, having studied in the West on how to deceive and undermine other people's efforts, is simply trying to take a lesson from his imperial textbook.

Mr Salim H.Ali You have insulted Pashtuns, specifically those coming from, FATA, by accusing them of having sympathy for Taliban and favoring fundamentalism. You intellectual bankruptcy can be gauged from the fact that you have interpreted "Allah-Akbar" (God is Great) on the flag of anti-British Waziris as a sign of fundamentalism. You should know that the slogan of "God is Great" is used as a rallying cry by muslims throughout the world, of whatever religious and political ideology they may be-and the recent and still ongoing revolutions in Egypt,Tunisia and Libya are cases in point, which are by no means led by conservatives or fundamentalists, but who use "Allah-o-Akbar" as one of the most predominant slogans.

What you have written is at best an immature, unsophisticated swipe, and at worst an effort for the continuation and extension of the Strategic Depth Policy ( which is literally strategic death for millions of Pahtuns) of the Pakistani establishment. Mr. Salim You have no idea about Pashtun history and culture. This article shows your shockingly poor understanding of the situation in Afghanistan and sources of violence in the region -which are totally external to the region whether the ISI, the CIA or the Saudi thugs . By making such mindless proposals you have insulted Pashtuns and have shown disrespect to sacrifices they have made in the fight against terrorism

Taliban and their ideology have never been popular among Pashtuns. Pashtun society has in fact been both tolerant and pluralistic. For centuries hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims and non-Pashtuns including Hindus, Christians. Sikhs, Zoroastrians and even Jews have been living amongst Pashtuns in peace and harmony. They continue to do so. During centuries of Pashtun rule on Afghanistan, and Pashtun regions of the current Pakistan, the relics and ruins of pre-Islamic, pre-Pashtun eras -Buddhist stupas, Buddha’s statues, Jewish synagogues, Hindu temples and Christian churches - were preserved and protected with zest and zeal. Likewise many European non-Pashtun and non-Muslim teachers, nurses, doctors and social scientists have lived among the Pashtuns for decades. Similarly one of the largest non-violent socio-political movements of the recent history, the Khudai Khidmatgar (servants of God) movement led by the Pashtun leader Abdul Ghafar Khan which mobilized more than 100,000 people, almost entirely consisted of Pashtuns.

Pashtuns have suffered more and longer than any other nation in the world because of Jihadism and religious extremism. If the Taliban represent Pashtuns one might wonder why they have cold-bloodedly murdered, slaughtered and maimed thousands of Pashtuns including tribal leaders, members of the legislature, religious scholars, teachers, and doctors, without regard for their victims' Pashtun identity. Why would Pashtun intellectuals, political leaders, musicians and artists, their lives threatened by the Taliban, have left their homeland? Why would the Taliban have declared the centuries- old Pashtun institution of Jirga (Consultative council) as un-Islamic and have bombed dozens of Jirga meetings, killing hundreds of Jirga members? Why would 3.5 million Pashtun inhabitants from Swat valley and adjoining districts leave their homes in the interests of the Pakistan army's war to crush the Taliban? (Even now millions of Pashtuns are living in tents in decrepit conditions because they want the Taliban annihilated). If they were supporters of Taliban, why would they live in ramshackle camps, away from their homes?

Throughout their lands, at enormous human cost, Pashtuns have formed lashkars (local militias) to fight and banish the Taliban. Pashtun organizations and forums are fighting Taliban on the ideological and political fronts. Pashtuns at large in fact see the Taliban as criminals who wish to destroy Pashtun society. Those Pashtuns who have joined different Taliban groups are deemed by their tribal leaders to have given up their Pashtun identity since they have given up Pashtunwali, the democratic and pluralistic customs of the people.

Mr Ali. You should keep in mind the above facts before coming with nonsensical ideas like the above one. Pashtuns would never allow the establishment of any Talibani emirate in their region. They have already rendered countless sacrifices to preclude such an eventualities and they would continue to do so,

Dear Saleem Ali
I am confident that Afghan and Pashtuns are able to expose all those writers and exploiters who want to attack Pashtuns’ identity, geography and way of life. We know that when it comes to people, definitions are written for the benefits of the definers, not the benefit of defined. Most of the times, the international media, literature, neighboring countries and governments portray Pashtun as a warrior-race and extremists. Throughout history - regional and international powers have used Pashtuns to pursue their own geo-political ambitions. Pashtun were described as a "martial race" and "holy warriors" in the context of the "great game." "the new world order" and the Wahabi doctrine of new Islam. The writers of mainland Punjab present Pashtun as people of hatred, racism, intolerance, violence and extremism to persue their personal and national agendas.

According to Pashtun tradition, there is no support for extremism in Pashtun society. We are peace loving and caring people. We have never exported Jehad or expansionist agendas to any other country. Pashtuns want to work collectively with neighbors and other nations to bring Pashtun’s point of view in our own words, lines and narration.

The writer of should know that when Pashtuns have done their own surveys and studies they have come up with their own definitions and results. A study of 550 professionals living in FATA was conducted in late 2009 by AIRRA to know the effects of Drone attacks. Based on the same study, Scott Shane of the New York Times had reported that residents of the tribal areas of Pakistan where the attacks occur, who bitterly resent the militants’ brutal rule, are far less critical of the drones. About half of those interviewed called the drone strikes “accurate,” 6 in 10 said they damaged militant organizations, and almost as many denied they increased anti-Americanism.

Mr. Saleem H Ali has adapted the same old line of the Pakistani establishment who had established Mullas government in Kabul in 1992 and where Pakistan’s Prime Minster at the time and Taliban sympathizer Nawaz Sharif and the son of military dictator General Zia Ulhaq paid thanks prayer in Kabul which killed hundreds and thousands of Kabul inhabitants for capturing Kabul. When this drama was failed, then the Pakistani establishment gave birth to Taliban.

The Taliban seized Kabul under the patronage of Pakistan Army, Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaida. The forces of Al Qaeda and ISI supported the Taliban with regiments of imported fighters from Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Students of Islami Jamait Talba of Pakistan and Jamiat Ulema Islam, East Turkestan Islamic Movement of China, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan of Tahir Yuldashev. In the late period of the Taliban, an estimated 45,000 force were fighting on the side of the Taliban while only 14,000 were Afghans, the rest was regular army of Pakistan and the Jihadists belonged to the above fictions and groups. The interior government of the Afghanistan Islamic Emirate was handed over to the one-eyed led Mula Mohammad Umar with majority of his cabinet were without legs, eyes or hands. While Al-Qaida of Osama Bin Laden’s and Amen Aul Zawaheri was hastily planning to launch assault against the west to free Palestine at the cost of Pashtun blood.

During Taliban and AlQada rule, they had methodically and violently forced half of its population – the women folks into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them from education and hospital. Even young girls and women faced public flogging in the streets, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's draconian laws which is contrary to Pashtun and Afghan culture.
The same model which Mr. Saleem Ali presents was tried in 2008-09 in Swat Valley, District Dir and Buner, by Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi led by Maulana Fazlullah aka Radio Mullah. The establishment of Pakistan and the world allowed Maulana Fazlullah to broadcast his warnings, messages of hatred and decrees of killing by slaughtering area elders and members of parliaments belonged to Awami National Party, Pakistan People Party and family members of Wali-e-Swat as well as artists and singers. They were given free hand by the ‘State’ to dismantle the order of the day by bombing schools, police stations, hotels and markets. Thanks to a timely warning in an press conference by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Pakistan to halt the marching of Taliban to Islamabad as they were coming through Buner on the way through Swabi, Kala Dhaka and Abbot-Abad.

The original plan as was advocated and supported by the establishment of Pakistan to give Swat, Chital, Kunar, and FATA where Taliban can establish their Islamic Emirates and where will be connected to Kashmir and Afghanistan to provide a new strategic depth to Pakistan state as now advocated by Mr Saleem Ali with amended geographic area.
If Mr Saleem Ali is really sincere to peruse his bankrupt idea and the free world want to support it then the Pashtun will support the same referendum in mainland Punjab as well.

After reading this flawed article on FP website, FP lost all the credibility it had in my eyes. I was shocked to read such a flawed piece written by an ISI employee on this reputable site. What the writer portrays in this article is what ISI and its paid so called liberal journalist are portraying in the western media. It’s the same tone which Pakistani ISI backed fundamentalist and extremist groups (Jumat-e-islamiI, PTI, Lashkar Jangwee, Sapahi-e- Supaha, Albadar etc) and personalities, like Hameed Gul, Imran, Qazi, Munawar Hassan etc are daily using on Pakistani Jehadi media. They only difference they openly support Taliban, while Mr. Ali has wrapped that same ideology in liberal cloth just to deceive readers.In my view, the article is intended just to fool and misguide the western readers. It’s intended to pursue ISI's agenda, which is to Talibanizing Pashtun belt for their Strategic depth and also to balm Pashtuns (the victims of Taliban) for all those nasty and Pashtun killer’s projects. Writer is totally biased, he ignored proven Pakistani ISI’s links with Taliban. He tried his best to disassociate Taliban from ISI.

The writer wants us to believe that Taliban is a separate thing than Pakistani ISI. In fact its not. It’s the same ideology Pakistani ISI carries and support for its fascist agendas in the region. Pakistani ISI believes they are playing smart games, but the whole world is not stupid, they are watching them from every angle. ISI is dreaming of controlling Afghanistan, FATA, and Pashtun belt through their trained so called Taliban, but trust me brave Pashtun would never allow the fulfillment of these nasty agendas. In fact its Pashtuns, who are fighting so called Taliban (Pakistan army’s creation) at every front, not the Pakistan army. Instead Pakistan Army and its allied political forces/ interest group like Jumat-r-Islami, PTI, Hameed Gul etc have so far only strengthened the Taliban movement. Pashtuns have formed forces (Lashkars) to fought Taliban while Pakistan army has been tasked to eliminate and kill those anti Taliban Lashkar’s leaders. One should visit Pashtunhwa and meet the relatives of those killed anti Taliban Lashkar leaders….they openly blame Pakistan Army for the killing of their relative and for supporting Taliban. They openly says that there is no Thalib, it’s just Pakistan Army wearing two heads..

Talibanization (An ISI’s project intended to dominate Afghanistan including Pashtun belt) is totally against Pashtune code of conduct known as “Pashtunwali”. Pakhtunwali or Pathanwali or Afghanwali means "the way of the Pashtuns", referring to the traditional lifestyle of the Pashtun people.It is also regarded as an ancient "code of life" or a non-written code of ethics that traditional Pashtuns follow. There are nine main principles of Pashtunwali. Pashtunwali is date back to pre-Islamic period and still hold more importance than anything els. It is more supreme to Pashtuns than even Islamic teaching. Pashtunwali promote self-respect, independence, justice, hospitality, love, forgiveness, and tolerance towards all.

Pashtun prefer “Pashtunwali” over Islamic teachings. There are dozens of situation where Pashtun would prefer Pashtunwali over Islam and there are many traditions, norms which are forbidden under Islam but are allowed and practiced proudly for centuries among Pashtuns.... Pakistan tried it best to keep FATA and Pashtun belt illiterate to achieve its hidden agendas; however it’s Pashtunwali which has prevented Pakistani officials from misusing Pashtuns. Therefore they are hiring more from south Pajnjab, and most of suicide bombers arrested so far are traced back to Pajnab.

Mr. Ali please watches this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tj5N1-yh3k) video one of hundred suicide bombers arrested…..to know who is operating and which province in Pakistan is the main supplier of suicide bombers in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It’s Panjab, which you used to portray as liberal just to misguide the masses… but how long you will deceive the western readers.

Anyway every Pashtun know the real face of Taliban ...who they are and from where they are controlled. It’s an open secret today, that who trained Taliban and for what purpose....Mr. Ali cannot hide that reality by writing on FP site. Taliban even today are openly supported and nourished by Pakistani ISI. I am not against Panjabies, but its hard fact that 99% of suicide bombers are Punjabis and from Punjab. The trainers of these Jehadi suicide bombers are all from GHQ Rawalpindi....you cannot hide that by writing one piece on FP. Your Army has launched an undeclared war against the entire world under the name of Taliban, but how long they will carry on….

The New America Foundation survey that the writer is referring again and again to is bogus. It is marred by serious methodological and ethical flaws. My analysis/critique of the survey has been accepted by a scientific journal and will be published this year by the journal.
New America Foundation has a track record of producing highly misleading reports about FATA. This is a brutality with people of FATA and unfair with the US people who might base their opinion upon the misinformation produced by this the New America Foundation. As a person from the area, I wish to warn the US readers again the uncritical acceptance of the reports on the tribal area of Pakistan by the New America Foundation.
Mr Saleem has no idea what he is talking about. His understanding ( from what I can see from this article) of the tribal society (in terms of culture in a sense that it is more religious than other parts of Pakistan) is at best far from the truth. In terms of security situation there, Mr Saleem seems to have no clue about who is doing what in FATA.
I will be questioning his non-sense in one of my next week column in the Daily Times.
At the same time I would expect a respectable magazine, like the Foreign Policy, to be careful about unreliable surveys especially when the writers refer to such surveys to substantiate ideas out of their wild fantasies having no roots in the reality.
Farhat Taj

I'm lost as to how could Foreign Policy let such a load of rubbish get through to the readers ? The author's idea, regardless of how ridiculous it is in terms of it's viability and implications, is based on evidences which clearly highlight his ignorance about the subject area, it's people, their culture and history.
Taliban, a pashto word for plural of Talib, meaning students of madressas, are strategic pawns of Pakistan's military establishment, who were propped up to secure strategic depth inside Afghanistan by Pakistan's military.
Their role, not their ethnicity, defines them, and hence should be dealt with as such. Take out Pakistan's military support from them, and see how long they last, just as it happened in Swat valley. Within 3 months, after the military was forced to take decisive action, there was no Talib left in Swat. The same applies to Taliban of FATA and Afghanistan.
The reason Americans could not win it against them, was that they have got sanctuaries inside Pakistan, provided to them by none other than ISI/Pakistani military. And let me inform the ignorant author, that these sanctuaries are not limited to FATA alone, as the most lethal of the Taliban commanders, Mr. Haqqani , roams freely in Islamabad and Peshawar, and that is in the full knowledge of everyone, except off course the ignorant author.
The author it seems does not know, that till this day, the Salarzai of Bajaur are fighting on their own against the Taliban, without any worthwhile support from outside. Their only complaint is that whenever they are about to deliver the killer blow, the Pakistani military intervenes to save their strategic assets. All the families of the pashtun elders killed accuse ISI of helping Taliban in their acts.
So, Mr. ignorant, it's your GHQ, located in Pindi, Punjab, which needs tuning, not the victim Pakhtuns.

"...recall the incorruptibility of the Taliban mullahs...They could no longer earn money through the drug trade -- currently, the Taliban encourage opium cultivation as an instrument of war, earning an estimated $400 million per year -- because one of the claims to piety during their heyday was a ban on opium."

However, it is well-documented that during this "ban" major drug traffickers aligned with the Taliban stockpiled opium allowing the price to skyrocket and they all made millions. What happened to many farmers and some of the population? They starved or fled to Pakistan. Did consumption of Afghan opium and heroin suffer? No. Now, at least two of those traffickers, Haji Bashir Noorzai and Haji Juma Khan Mohammadhasni are behind bars in the United States. Noorzai has already been convicted of importing heroin to the United States during Taliban rule. How do you suppose the "pious" Taliban would allow a powerful and influential Pashtun tribesman to smuggle heroin during a stretch that included a ban? Because they were benefiting from the trade even then.

This article is yet another attempt by a Pakistani liberal to camouflage Punjab-centered Pakistan's army expansionist agenda through jehad. They are past masters at doing this. From the first Indo-Pak War in 1948 to successive wars with India in 1965 (Operation Gebraltors and Operation Grand Slam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar), 1971, and 1999 (Kargal War when Pakistan army soldiers and Kashmiri militants infiltrated Indian-held Kashmir) ---and to Pakistan's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear proliferation, 2003), the Punjab-centered Pakistani establishment has always found itself masks and scapegoats to conceal its designs or absolve itself of the blame for its policies.

In this particular case as well, Mr. Salim Ali has tried to portray the Jehadi project run by the Punjab-centered Pakistani intelligence agencies and army to dominate Afghanistan as the aspirations of the indigenous people. To back his contention, he mentions Faqir of Epi. This is the usual trick that some intellectuals from Punjab employ out of a sense of a Punjab-centric patriotism.

One can well ask Mr Salim Ali was Faqir Epi's movement any popular in the broader Pashtun community beyond the few villages surrounding his base? How many Pashtun knew him at that time and now? The fact is, neither at that time nor now, most of the Pashtuns didn't/don't know whether the person exists or even existed.

Most relevantly, has the radical Islam origin in the genesis and ideological foundations of Pakistan and in the ambitions of the mostly Punjab-centered military bureaucratic classes or in the aspirations of the poor inhabitants of FATA? If the Allah-o-Akbar on the flag of Faqir Epi is indicative of his Islamist inclination what by the way is Pakistan an acronym proposed by Choudri Rahmat Ali an inhabitant of Punjab as the name of the country for Muslims which literally translates to "land of the faithful" is indicative of? Was the Pan-Islamist destiny for Pakistan propounded by Allama Iqbal a Punjabi revered for being the father of Pakistan Islamist ideology or someone from FATA? Is it FATA that is called the bastion of this Islamist ideology of Pakistan or Punjab, the heartland of Pakistan?

Who by the way were the architect of modern Jehadi phenomenon? Weren’t they people like General Zia-ul-Haq , General Akhtar Abdur Rahmman Khan,( the notorious )General Hamid Gul , General Javed Nasir , General Asad Durrani, etc. , who are all Punjabis? Who were colonal Imam and Khalid Khwaja type characters? Weren't they Punjabis? Why are the Punjabi liberals reluctant to accept that major and the ultra-radical ideological militant groups like Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammad, Harkatul Mujahideen, Hizbul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Sipah-i-Sahaba, Sipah-i-Mohammad, etc. This article is yet another attempt by a Pakistani liberal to camouflage Punjab-centered Pakistan's army expansionist agenda through Islamist jehad. They are past masters at this. From the first Indo-Pak War in 1948 to successive wars with India in 1965 (Operation Gebraltors and Operation Grand Slam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar), 1971, and 1999 (Kargal War when Pakistan army soldiers and Kashmiri militants infiltrated Indian-held Kashmir) ---and to Pakistan's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear proliferation, 2003), the Punjab-centered Pakistani establishment has always found itself masks and scapegoats to conceal its designs or absolve itself of the blame for its policies.

In this particular case as well, Mr. Salim Ali has tried to portray the Jehadi project run by the Punjab-centered Pakistani intelligence agencies and army to dominate Afghanistan as the aspiration of the indigenous people. To back his contention, he mentions Faqir of Epi. This is the usual trick intellectuals from Punjab employ out of a sense of a Punjab-centric Pakistani patriotism to further Pakistan’s strategic interest.

One can well ask Mr Salim Ali was Faqir Epi's movement any popular in the broader Pashtun community beyond the few villages surrounding his base? How many Pashtun knew him at that time and now? The fact is, neither at that time nor now, most of the Pashtuns didn't/don't know whether the person exists or ever existed.

Most relevantly, has the radical Islam origin in the genesis and ideological foundations of Pakistan and in the ambitions of the mostly Punjab-centered military bureaucratic classes or in the aspirations of the poor inhabitants of FATA? If the Allah-o-Akbar on the flag of Faqir Epi is indicative of his Islamist inclination what by the way is Pakistan an acronym proposed by Choudri Rahmat Ali an inhabitant of Punjab as the name of the country for Muslims which literally translates to "land of the faithful” indicative of? Was the Pan-Islamist destiny for Pakistan propounded by Allama Iqbal a Punjabi revered for being the father of Pakistan Islamist ideology or someone from FATA? Is it FATA that is called the bastion of this Islamist ideology of Pakistan or Punjab, the heartland of Pakistan?

Who by the way was the architect of modern Jehadi phenomenon? Weren’t they people like General Zia-ul-Haq , General Akhtar Abdur Rahmman Khan,( the notorious )General Hamid Gul , General Javed Nasir , General Asad Durrani, etc. , who are all Punjabis? Who were colonal Imam and Khalid Khwaja type characters? Weren't they Punjabis? Why are the Punjabi liberals reluctant to accept that major and the ultra-radical ideological militant groups like Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammad, Harkatul Mujahideen, Hizbul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Sipah-i-Sahaba, Sipah-i-Mohammad, etc. are Punjab-based and have following in Punjab. are Punjab-based and have following in Punjab. This is not to deny that Pashtuns like Haqqani, etc. are involved in it but they are mostly the foot soldiers implementing someone else’s agenda.

The plain fact is, the Jehadi problem in South Asia is more a Punjabi problem than a Pashtun problem. An obvious example of that is in Kashmir where Pashtuns have no interests involved. Tthrough the years of authoritarian rule, the military-bureaucratic class of the Punjab and its ideological partners like Jummath-i-Islami, Tahrik-i-Insaf of Imran Khan, its affluent and middle classes, and its politician have been able to garner such a thorough domination in Pakistan to the exclusion of other Pakistanis that the rules of the game are entirely set by the Punjab. Made stronger by the decades of Western backing during the Cold War, since Zia time, these classes have grown regional and extra-regional ambitions. The nuclear power status (the so-called Islamic bomb or Punjabi bomb to underline Punjab’s ownership of it) further heightens these ambitions. A Islam based identity and Punjab-centered Pakistani patriotism has taken shape in Pakistan that emphasizes the status of Pakistan as a Muslim power in South and Central Asia. Regional stability and order brought about by US-NATO through stability in Afghanistan is considered a threat that has the potential to disturb the power balance within Pakistan in terms of inter-provincial relations. Punjab is to Pakistan as Serbs were to Yugoslavia or Sunni Arabs to Iraq. The real problem in South Asia is not FATA but rather the Punjab which is pursuing policies that are destabilising the region.

What is the world seeing in FATA is a regional manifestation of Punjab's power.

This article is yet another attempt by a Pakistani liberal to camouflage Punjab-centered Pakistan's army expansionist agenda through Islamist jehad. They are past masters at doing this. From the first Indo-Pak War in 1948 to successive wars with India in 1965 (Operation Gebraltors and Operation Grand Slam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar), 1971, and 1999 (Kargal War when Pakistan army soldiers and Kashmiri militants infiltrated Indian-held Kashmir) ---and to Pakistan's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear proliferation, 2003), the Punjab-centered Pakistani establishment has always found itself masks and scapegoats to conceal its designs or absolve itself of the blame for its policies.

In this particular case as well, Mr. Salim Ali has tried to portray the Jehadi project run by the Punjab-centered Pakistani intelligence agencies and army to dominate Afghanistan as the aspiration of the indigenous people. To back his contention, he mentions Faqir of Epi. This is the usual trick some intellectuals from Punjab employ out of a sense of a Punjab-centric Pakistani patriotism to further Pakistan’s strategic interest.

One can well ask Mr Salim Ali, was Faqir Epi's movement any popular in the broader Pashtun community beyond the few villages surrounding his base? How many Pashtun knew him at that time and now? The fact is, neither at that time nor now, most of Pashtuns don't know whether the person exists or ever existed.

Most relevantly, has the radical Islam origin in the genesis and ideological foundations of Pakistan and in the ambitions of the mostly Punjab-centered military bureaucratic classes or in the aspirations of the poor inhabitants of FATA? If the Allah-o-Akbar on the flag of Faqir Epi is indicative of his Islamist inclination what by the way is Pakistan an acronym proposed by Choudri Rahmat Ali an inhabitant of Punjab as the name of the country for Muslims which literally translates to "land of the faithful” indicative of? Was the Pan-Islamist destiny for Pakistan propounded by Allama Iqbal a Punjabi revered for being the father of Pakistan Islamist ideology or someone from FATA? Is it FATA that is called the bastion of this radical Islamic ideology of Pakistan or Punjab, the heartland of Pakistan?

Who by the way was the architect of modern Jehadi phenomenon? Weren’t they people like General Zia-ul-Haq , General Akhtar Abdur Rahmman Khan, General Hamid Gul , General Javed Nasir , General Asad Durrani, etc. , who are all Punjabis? Who were colonal Imam and Khalid Khwaja type characters? Weren't they Punjabis? Why are the Punjabi liberals reluctant to accept that major and the ultra-radical ideological militant groups like Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammad, Harkatul Mujahideen, Hizbul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Sipah-i-Sahaba, Sipah-i-Mohammad, etc., are Punjab-based and have following in Punjab. This is not to deny that Pashtuns like Haqqani, etc. are involved in it but they are mostly the foot soldiers implementing Pakistan Army agenda of expansion through Jehad.

The plain fact is, the Jehadi problem in South Asia is more a Punjabi problem than a Pashtun problem. An obvious example of that is in Kashmir insurgency where Pashtuns have no interests or role and has entirely been stirred by Pakistan Army. In fact, through the years of authoritarian rule, the military-bureaucratic class of the Punjab and its ideological partners like Jummath-i-Islami, Tahrik-i-Insaf of Imran Khan, its affluent and middle classes, and its politician have been able to garner such a thorough domination in Pakistan to the exclusion of other Pakistanis that the rules of the game are entirely set by the Punjab. Made stronger by the decades of Western backing during the Cold War, since Zia time, these classes have grown regional and extra-regional ambitions. The nuclear power status (the so-called Islamic bomb or Punjabi bomb by non-Punjabi Pakistani ethnic groups to underline Punjab’s ownership of it) further heightens these ambitions. A Islam based identity and Punjab-centered Pakistani patriotism has taken shape in Pakistan that emphasizes the status of Pakistan as a Muslim power in South and Central Asia. Regional stability and order brought about by US-NATO through stability in Afghanistan is considered a threat that has the potential to disturb the balance within Pakistan in terms of inter-provincial power relations. Punjab is to Pakistan as Serbs were to Yugoslavia or Sunni Arabs to Iraq. The real problem in South Asia is not FATA but rather Punjab which is pursuing destabilizing policies in the region.

What is the world seeing in FATA is a manifestation of the Punjab-power phenomena.

There cannot be a referendum for Shariah based governance when there are foreign occupiers controlling the land and the governments of the region.

Such a proposal is a set up, a roose designed to fool people who don't understand the calculus of realpolitick.

Shariah must have complete autonomy implemented with the authority of free Muslim people. The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) himself accepted nothing less when various tribes approached him to rule them but with various conditions of compromise.

This has been witnessed already in Gaza. Where a so called Islamic emirate become an enclave where the enemies of Islam and Muslim people control all the circumstances outside of such enclaves in order to punish, persecute, and oppress the people. And they use the people's suffering as a way of propaganda against Islam and against liberation from kufr and imperial dominion.

Does the child have autonomy to rule and set his own affairs in his bedroom in his father's house?

All of Afghanistan has to be liberated from foreign occupation.
And Pakistan too has to be liberated from the soft occupation by American power which has its JSOC forward operating base in Karachi from where all secret and false flag operations by joint special forces are carried out throughout Pakistan and central Asia (excluding NATO led Afghanistan).

Professor Saleem Ali should we not have a referendum in Afghanistan
whether they wish to have union with Pakistan, Iran or one of the three Central Asian States. I do not think any Afghan no matter which ethnic group they belong will vote against Pakistan unless they are heavily paid
by vested interests to vote against Pakistan. The idea of Balkanization of
this region has been on the board since 2003 and you are not the first to suggest the idea of referendum. How much did you get or plan to get
in causing this furor. My advise is that you study Pashtunwali and history of Pakhtuns by prominent writers and not by those who have designs to destroy the Pashtun Society. Talibans would not have come into existence if some Warlords had adhered to the agreement signed by all the Warlords in 1989-1990 at Islamabad and Kabul. This war is basically between Pashtuns and Tajiks with the former supported by Pakistan and latter by India. The solution is to hold referendum through an independent body, obviously not UN! but selected neutral nations of
Europe, Latin America and Africa.

Would you like to be the first one stoned or have a hand amputated under Sharia law?

Have you ever noticed that Islamic countries are the most dysfunctional on the planet?

I see this as the only way to bring about peace in Af-Pak region, and the only honorable way for the NATO to leave Afghanistan.

This is a very good idea indeed, however for it to really work, one would have to allow all Pushtun majority areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan to partake in this referendum, which includes FATA, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Northern Baluchistan, and Eastern Afghanistan. If all these regions are not included, the Taliban would continue with their violence against its neighbors.

It is however important that while any such Talibanistan is being contemplated, Pakistan should not be forced to lose land access to Central Asia. This can however be secured if districts such as Chitral, Kohistan, Swat, Upper Dir, Malakand, Mansehra, Battagram, etc lying in East Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which have not been traditionally Pushtun are retained in Pakistan. This would afford Pakistan access to the Tajik region of Afghanistan.

Similarly in the East, Pakistan should retain a corridor passing through Baluchistan and South-Western Afghanistan into Central Asia.

The creation of Talibanistan would enable Pakistan to stabilize itself and to prosper.

It should perhaps be noted, that through the creation of Pakistan, it finally allowed India to find peace and prosper as well.

Professor Ali has taken serious liberties with the facts and has tried to denigrate the Pashtuns by portraying them as a people inherently incapable of living under a democratic dispensation. He simply ignores the secular-democratic Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (KKM) that dominated the Pashtun polity in the first half of the 20th century

When Samuel Huntington and Warren Manshel co-founded the Foreign Policy magazine (FP) in 1970, they felt that “in the light of Vietnam, the basic purposes of American foreign policy demand re-examination and redefinition”. They pledged to do so through “an effort to stimulate rational discussion of the new directions required in American foreign policy”. They described their vision in their first editorial dated January 1, 1971:

“Our goal is a journal of foreign policy which is serious but not scholarly, lively but not glib, and critical without being negative. And we frankly hope that the discussions of these issues in our pages will affect the actions, or at least the thinking, of those in government, academia, business or elsewhere who shape our foreign policy.”

FP has since gone through many phases, editors and management, but has more or less stuck to the original vision of a lively yet serious debate. Even those of us who have never subscribed to Huntington and FP’s US-centric view of the history and future, considered the periodical a sober entity — well, up until last week.

On February 25, 2011 an article titled ‘The Islamic Republic of Talibanisation’, by Professor Saleem Hassan Ali of the University of Vermont, was published online by FP in its section titled “Argument”. The gist of Professor Ali’s outlandish theory is that having failed to rout the Taliban in Afghanistan through military means, the US should somehow arrange for a referendum to be held in Afghanistan and several adjoining parts of Pakistan, in which people would opt for an Islamic emirate under the Taliban rule. If and when such a referendum is successful, the people of Afghanistan and Waziristan subscribing to the Taliban worldview can immigrate to this autonomous emirate. The US and its allies would have to make sure that this entity is encapsulated from the surroundings so as to prevent export of violence but would be induced to trade with the neighbours and encouraged to “try its hand at governing”, which shall eventually result in everyone and their uncle living happily ever after.

Reading the 1360-word piece left me scratching my head. Was this a tongue-in-cheek swipe at both the Taliban and the regional and world powers? I wondered if some political fiction had gone totally haywire. Is this what Huntington and Manshel had meant by serious, rational and lively debate, without being negative? But reading the comment section underneath the article one could almost hear the Twilight Zone music playing: Professor Ali in his responses to a barrage of criticism appeared to be seriously defending an atrociously glib thesis!

Making a case for a fundamental change in the western and US strategy to cope with the Taliban’s ‘staying power in Afghanistan’, Professor Ali starts with a frontal assault on the Pashtun nation itself. In an utter disregard for the history of the region, he writes: “The fact is that the Taliban and other Islamist elements are popular in the region out of which they operate, the Pashtun tribal belt between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has always been an utterly conservative locale where the local population has generally favoured Islamic fundamentalism. Even going back to the 1930s, Waziristan’s rallying flag against the British was a simple white calligraphic ‘Allah-Akbar’ (God is Great) on red fabric.”

Well, the fact is that Professor Ali has taken serious liberties with the facts and has tried to denigrate the Pashtuns by portraying them as a people inherently incapable of living under a democratic dispensation. He simply ignores the secular-democratic Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (KKM) that dominated the Pashtun polity in the first half of the 20th century. He then mentions the doctored elections of the 2002, stating: “In Pakistan’s frontier province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Islamists were freely elected into power in one recent election.” However, cherry-picking the history, he skips the electoral rout of these same Islamist political parties at the hands of the secular Awami National Party (a continuation of the KKM) in 2008 elections that were widely accepted as free and fair. And even before that, the Pashtuns of the tribal belt have elected people with impeccable secular credentials like Abdul Lateef Afridi (Khyber), Shahabuddin Khan (Bajaur) and Dr Javed Hussain (Kurram) in various national assembly elections.

Professor Ali quotes a New America Foundation poll, which had suggested that the majority in Waziristan opposes the west’s military presence and that the parties (JI, JUI, PTI) with Islamist inclinations would gain almost half of the votes in a free and open election. Ironic that an article published under the section “Argument” would have a deductive fallacy bigger than the Hoover Dam: most Waziris despise foreign presence while all Taliban fight the foreigners, therefore the Waziris want to be ruled by the Taliban!

But this is not it. The article lectures the geopolitical strategists to seriously consider a canton under the Taliban where they may be free to flog and maim people. Professor Ali writes: “Although the west and its allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been terrified by the spectre of a second Islamic republic, there is a way to mitigate the threat: the creation of a semiautonomous region where Islamists can exercise their draconian system of law — if that is what the people agree to impose upon themselves.” In the most blatant manner Professor Ali not only blames the victim but also expects that the Pashtuns of FATA, held hostage by the armed mercenaries and their masters in Rawalpindi, will somehow vote freely in a fair referendum.

Pashtuns are outraged at FP for allowing its pages to be used not just to disparage a proud people but also to propose creating a terrorist haven. FP calls its flagship blog, ‘Passport’. But with this new low in geopolitical discourse it seems more like a passport to a barbarian dystopia, where new techniques of torture and terror would be perfected.

Sam Huntington had said in an NPR interview: “I think clearly the US, as well as other western nations, should stand by their commitments to human rights and democracy and should try to influence other to move in that direction.” This is precisely what Barack Obama has decided to do in the rapidly unravelling situation in the Arab world. But apparently, Professor Ali has opted to stand on the wrong side of not just the Pashtuns but also the history itself. As for FP, it ought to revisit its first editorial.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\03\03\story_3-3-2011_pg3_2

Professor Ali has taken serious liberties with the facts and has tried to denigrate the Pashtuns by portraying them as a people inherently incapable of living under a democratic dispensation. He simply ignores the secular-democratic Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (KKM) that dominated the Pashtun polity in the first half of the 20th century

When Samuel Huntington and Warren Manshel co-founded the Foreign Policy magazine (FP) in 1970, they felt that “in the light of Vietnam, the basic purposes of American foreign policy demand re-examination and redefinition”. They pledged to do so through “an effort to stimulate rational discussion of the new directions required in American foreign policy”. They described their vision in their first editorial dated January 1, 1971:

“Our goal is a journal of foreign policy which is serious but not scholarly, lively but not glib, and critical without being negative. And we frankly hope that the discussions of these issues in our pages will affect the actions, or at least the thinking, of those in government, academia, business or elsewhere who shape our foreign policy.”

FP has since gone through many phases, editors and management, but has more or less stuck to the original vision of a lively yet serious debate. Even those of us who have never subscribed to Huntington and FP’s US-centric view of the history and future, considered the periodical a sober entity — well, up until last week.

On February 25, 2011 an article titled ‘The Islamic Republic of Talibanisation’, by Professor Saleem Hassan Ali of the University of Vermont, was published online by FP in its section titled “Argument”. The gist of Professor Ali’s outlandish theory is that having failed to rout the Taliban in Afghanistan through military means, the US should somehow arrange for a referendum to be held in Afghanistan and several adjoining parts of Pakistan, in which people would opt for an Islamic emirate under the Taliban rule. If and when such a referendum is successful, the people of Afghanistan and Waziristan subscribing to the Taliban worldview can immigrate to this autonomous emirate. The US and its allies would have to make sure that this entity is encapsulated from the surroundings so as to prevent export of violence but would be induced to trade with the neighbours and encouraged to “try its hand at governing”, which shall eventually result in everyone and their uncle living happily ever after.

Reading the 1360-word piece left me scratching my head. Was this a tongue-in-cheek swipe at both the Taliban and the regional and world powers? I wondered if some political fiction had gone totally haywire. Is this what Huntington and Manshel had meant by serious, rational and lively debate, without being negative? But reading the comment section underneath the article one could almost hear the Twilight Zone music playing: Professor Ali in his responses to a barrage of criticism appeared to be seriously defending an atrociously glib thesis!

Making a case for a fundamental change in the western and US strategy to cope with the Taliban’s ‘staying power in Afghanistan’, Professor Ali starts with a frontal assault on the Pashtun nation itself. In an utter disregard for the history of the region, he writes: “The fact is that the Taliban and other Islamist elements are popular in the region out of which they operate, the Pashtun tribal belt between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has always been an utterly conservative locale where the local population has generally favoured Islamic fundamentalism. Even going back to the 1930s, Waziristan’s rallying flag against the British was a simple white calligraphic ‘Allah-Akbar’ (God is Great) on red fabric.”

Well, the fact is that Professor Ali has taken serious liberties with the facts and has tried to denigrate the Pashtuns by portraying them as a people inherently incapable of living under a democratic dispensation. He simply ignores the secular-democratic Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (KKM) that dominated the Pashtun polity in the first half of the 20th century. He then mentions the doctored elections of the 2002, stating: “In Pakistan’s frontier province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Islamists were freely elected into power in one recent election.” However, cherry-picking the history, he skips the electoral rout of these same Islamist political parties at the hands of the secular Awami National Party (a continuation of the KKM) in 2008 elections that were widely accepted as free and fair. And even before that, the Pashtuns of the tribal belt have elected people with impeccable secular credentials like Abdul Lateef Afridi (Khyber), Shahabuddin Khan (Bajaur) and Dr Javed Hussain (Kurram) in various national assembly elections.

Professor Ali quotes a New America Foundation poll, which had suggested that the majority in Waziristan opposes the west’s military presence and that the parties (JI, JUI, PTI) with Islamist inclinations would gain almost half of the votes in a free and open election. Ironic that an article published under the section “Argument” would have a deductive fallacy bigger than the Hoover Dam: most Waziris despise foreign presence while all Taliban fight the foreigners, therefore the Waziris want to be ruled by the Taliban!

But this is not it. The article lectures the geopolitical strategists to seriously consider a canton under the Taliban where they may be free to flog and maim people. Professor Ali writes: “Although the west and its allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been terrified by the spectre of a second Islamic republic, there is a way to mitigate the threat: the creation of a semiautonomous region where Islamists can exercise their draconian system of law — if that is what the people agree to impose upon themselves.” In the most blatant manner Professor Ali not only blames the victim but also expects that the Pashtuns of FATA, held hostage by the armed mercenaries and their masters in Rawalpindi, will somehow vote freely in a fair referendum.

Pashtuns are outraged at FP for allowing its pages to be used not just to disparage a proud people but also to propose creating a terrorist haven. FP calls its flagship blog, ‘Passport’. But with this new low in geopolitical discourse it seems more like a passport to a barbarian dystopia, where new techniques of torture and terror would be perfected.

Sam Huntington had said in an NPR interview: “I think clearly the US, as well as other western nations, should stand by their commitments to human rights and democracy and should try to influence other to move in that direction.” This is precisely what Barack Obama has decided to do in the rapidly unravelling situation in the Arab world. But apparently, Professor Ali has opted to stand on the wrong side of not just the Pashtuns but also the history itself. As for FP, it ought to revisit its first editorial.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

I will respond to these comments in my next oped piece for Pakistan's Express tribune next week. Best wishes for peace across the region, particularly for Pakhtun bretheren

When people like you will leave pukhtoons alone. Talibans are not popular in pukhtuns and they will never be, I am 100% sure.

Allama Iqbal is born and now need a Quaid-i-azam to materialize it!!! Ganijee, Azad and Bacha Khan were right in 1947 and Jinnah, Iqbal and the author are wrong today. PROVEN

@Saleem Ali
Afghanistan has been a sovereign state since 1747, long before Pakistan and India were wet dreams in their creators minds. Pashtuns are progressive and enlightened and most of them hate these Talibans that have come under the sway of the Punjabi ISI.
I agree with poster Baryal in his assessment that a Talibanistan should be created in Punjab not in FATA or the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan. We already gave you a crappy country next door to us and we don't need another dumb Pakistani mini state called Talibanistan.