Political Islam Online
Accommodating the Taliban
An Ill Conceived and Unprincipled Policy
By: Raouf Ebeid – Editor
Published: March 24, 2009
In his interview on Sixty Minutes this past Sunday, President Obama said
that he was spending time in the evening reading about the problems in
Afghanistan. It appears that he’s been reading Fareed Zakaria
(Newsweek), as his views were echoed in the President’s suggestion that
he would consider accepting some kind of accommodation with the more
“moderate” elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan that, in his view, could
effectively split the movement. The President should expand his reading
list, which should include some of the well-respected, moderate Arab
writers.
Take for example, Mushari Al-Zayidi. Writing this past week1 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Al-Zayidi
questioned Zakaria’s assertion that the world can accept and accommodate radical Islam. In essence, Al-
Zayidi observes that Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan seems to be based on Zakaria’s theory that the
United States should draw on its experience in Iraq where some of the Sunni groups were recruited,
separated from Al-Qaeda and their lethal power against American forces nullified. Al-Zayidi finds
Zakaria’s theory, which relies for support on statements made by David Kilcullen, advisor to General
David Petraeus in Iraq, an ill conceived, fundamentally flawed experiment. While it is true that the
Taliban are Sunni, as were the groups in Iraq, Al-Zayidi explains that the similarities end there. The
Sunni tribal groups in Iraq were never religious extremists; most came from the socialist Baath party in
which religion played little if any role. The Sunnis turned anti-American because the United States
disbanded the Iraqi army, leaving the Sunnis fearful of the Shi’a, bitter, short on cash and ready to join
Al-Qaeda or any other movement. They were basically mercenaries, so once the United States started
paying them they readily switched allegiance.
The situation in Afghanistan is quite different. The Taliban are religious fanatics,
not frustrated mercenaries. They are strong supporters of a strict – and some
believe distorted – interpretation of the Islamic shari’a, including a total ban on
the education of women. The Taliban is also well funded by its opium trade and
therefore doesn’t need to sell its allegiance for a handful of cash; it can afford to
buy allegiance. It is also important to remember how the Taliban came to power.
Infighting among Afghanistan’s corrupt and brutal warlords had thrown the
country into chaos. The Taliban, with their strict religious order, gave the
1
March 10th, 2009 http://www.aawsat.com/print.asp?did=510419&issueno=11060 – Title: “It is a weak proposal, Fareed”
population a sense of security, albeit at a significant cost. Success in Afghanistan depends upon
unseating the Taliban, not accommodating them. It will only be possible to do so if we can provide the
population with an environment in which they can live free from the oppressive Taliban regime, but
retained the sense of security for which they have paid dearly.
Al-Zaydi views the idea of “coexistence” advocated by Zakaria, and apparently embraced by President
Obama, as impractical, opportunistic and surely will be seen in the Arab world as a sign of weakness. It is
therefore bound to fail. Al-Zaydi is well aware of “the complexity of confronting the extremists”. He
points out, however, that the history in many Arab countries has shown that when Muslim radicals were
left unchecked the results were disastrous. “We began to see their fanaticism in all aspects of our lives, as
they fought against the arts, the sciences and any opening to the outside world. They stubbornly rejected
civility and progress.” The Saudi’s experience with cozying up to the Islamists is undoubtedly one of the
most convincing illustrations of the failure of such a strategy. Thus, the Saudi King, who is trying hard to
reverse this trend [see PI 566 – The King’s Quiet Revolution], must be very alarmed to see the apparent
willingness of the U.S. administration to consider accommodating the extremist Taliban in Afghanistan.
Al-Zaydi argues that attempts to accommodate radicals are always unsuccessful and short lived.
Moreover, he explains, fanaticism cannot be confined within geographical boundaries. “It will spill over
into other Muslim countries as these movements export their ideology.” Thus, if the United States
“accommodates” the fanaticism of the Taliban under any pretext, it will embolden Islamists in Yemen,
Libya, Morocco and Algeria, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Wahabi in Saudi Arabia.
(Widely read Islamic columnist Fahmi Huwaydi, writing in Al-Jazeera yesterday,2 is already touting
President Obama’s new label — “moderate Talibans” — as an accepted term in world politics.) It would
therefore be a grave mistake if the United States fails to appreciate that Afghanistan is not Iraq, or
ignores the facts for the sake of political expediency.
Principles, no matter how inconvenient, matter. Establishing a dialogue with other countries we disagree
with like Iran is wise. Such dialogue should not however be confused with a policy of accommodating
radical groups like the Taliban. Such a policy is difficult to rationalize logically or justify morally. Keep
reading Mr. President. Then look your wife and daughters in the eye and ask yourself whether you would
sacrifice women’s right to life, liberty and education on the altar of political accommodation.
PI Online – PI567 – March 24, 2009
Return to: http://www.politicalislam.org
Political Islam Online holds copyrights in all translations & analyses presented on this site. Materials may only be cited or
reproduced with proper attribution.

Click to access PI%20567%20-%20Accommodating%20the%20Taliban.pdf