Carter Malkasian is “the author of The American War in Afghanistan: A History. He served as a civilian advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan and was the senior advisor to General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from 2015 to 2019.” In this long piece for Politico from early July, he wrestles with the fact that the Taliban was motivated, and was able to motivate Afghans, on the basis of Islamic teachings. He doesn’t like this idea, as he thinks that it makes Islam, which, he says, preaches “unity, justice and peace” look bad, but he finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that the Taliban was and is popular among Afghans because of their loyalty to Islam. This should have been an elementary fact that was known and studied by Dunford and his advisers. It clearly wasn’t. And that’s part of the problem.
“What America Didn’t Understand About Its Longest War,” by Carter Malkasian, Politico, July 6, 2021:
…I have found no single answer to why we lost the war. While various explanations address different parts of the puzzle, the one I want to highlight here can perhaps be seen most clearly in the conversations I’ve had with the Taliban themselves, often in their native Pashto. “The Taliban fight for belief, for janat (heaven) and ghazi (killing infidels). … The army and police fight for money,” a Taliban religious scholar from Kandahar told me in 2019. “The Taliban are willing to lose their head to fight. … How can the army and police compete?”
The Taliban had an advantage in inspiring Afghans to fight. Their call to fight foreign occupiers, steeped in references to Islamic teachings, resonated with Afghan identity. For Afghans, jihad — more accurately understood as “resistance” or “struggle” than the caricatured meaning it has acquired in the United States — has historically been a means of defense against oppression by outsiders, part of their endurance against invader after invader. Even though Islam preaches unity, justice and peace, the Taliban were able to tie themselves to religion and to Afghan identity in a way that a government allied with non-Muslim foreign occupiers could not match.
The very presence of Americans in Afghanistan trod on a sense of Afghan identity that incorporated national pride, a long history of fighting outsiders and a religious commitment to defend the homeland. It prodded men and women to defend their honor, their religion and their home. It dared young men to fight. It sapped the will of Afghan soldiers and police. The Taliban’s ability to link their cause to the very meaning of being Afghan was a crucial factor in America’s defeat.
This explanation has been underappreciated by American leaders and experts, myself included. We believed things were possible in Afghanistan — defeat of the Taliban or enabling the Afghan government to stand on its own — that probably were not. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we should have abandoned Afghanistan long ago, given what we knew at the time. It does mean that the strategy could have been better managed to avoid expending resources on objectives that were unlikely to be attained. Less money could have been spent. Fewer lives could have been lost. But that America couldn’t have done much more than muddle along for years in the face of a relentless enemy is the unsatisfying, sometimes frustrating coda to our longest war….
A few months after returning home, I attended a discussion at the State Department with Michael McKinley, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. We were having a lively debate about why the Taliban fight when the ambassador interjected. “Maybe I have read too much Hannah Arendt,” he said, referring to the 20th-century philosopher who argued that human action was spurred by fears and past experiences, “but I do not think this is about money or jobs. The Taliban are fighting for something larger.” McKinley captured what I was feeling but had not articulated, and what the Taliban scholar would reiterate for me five years later.
The explanation is powerful, but also dangerous. It can be twisted to mean that all Muslims are bent on war or are fanatics. Such an interpretation would be wrong: Islam is a source of unity and inspiration, not of terrorism or atrocity. To say that a people have sympathy for their countrymen and co-religionists over foreigners is hardly to label Islam as evil. The point is that it is tougher to risk life for country when fighting alongside what some call occupiers, especially when they do not share your faith.
The explanation came up in a variety of conversations and correspondence I have had over the years with Afghans, military commanders, tribal leaders and Taliban themselves. Kandahar’s notorious police chief, the late Abdul Razziq, was renowned for caring for his officers and something of an authority on fighting the Taliban. He told me, “Taliban morale is better than government morale. Taliban morale is very high. Look at their suicide bombers. The Taliban motivate people to do incredible things.”
A Taliban religious leader from Paktia made a similar point:
I hear every day of an incident where police or army soldiers are killed. … I do not know if they are committed to fighting the Taliban or not. Many of the police and soldiers are there only for dollars. They are paid good salaries but they do not have the motivation to defend the government. … Taliban are committed to the cause of jihad. This is the biggest victory for them.
More convincingly, multiple surveys of Taliban opinion by Graeme Smith, Ashley Jackson, Theo Farrell, Antonio Giustozzi and others have confirmed that the Taliban fight in part because they believe it their Islamic duty to resist occupation and are convinced their cause will enable them to win. Jackson’s survey of 50 Taliban, published in 2019, discovered that they described their decision to join the movement “in terms of religious devotion and jihad—a sense of personal and public duty. In their view, jihad against foreign occupation was a religious obligation, undertaken to defend their values.” Jihad was about identity, she concluded.
This thinking extends to ordinary Afghans as well, many of whom do not subscribe to the Taliban’s extremist political vision but are sympathetic to their invocation of Islamic principles against foreign occupiers. The 2012 Asia Foundation survey, the most respected survey of the Afghan people, found that of those Afghans who strongly sympathized with the Taliban, 77 percent said they did so because the Taliban were Afghans, Muslims, and waging jihad.
Over time, aware of the government’s vulnerable position, Afghan leaders turned to an outside source to galvanize the population: Pakistan. Razziq, President Hamid Karzai and later President Ashraf Ghani used Pakistan as an outside threat to unite Afghans behind them. They refused to characterize the Taliban as anything but a creation of Islamabad. Razziq relentlessly claimed to be fighting a foreign Pakistani invasion. Yet Pakistan could never fully out-inspire occupation. A popular tale related to me in 2018 by an Afghan government official illuminates the reality:
An Afghan army officer and a Taliban commander were insulting each other over their radios while shooting back and forth. The Taliban commander taunted: “You are puppets of America!” The army officer shouted back: “You are the puppets of Pakistan!” The Taliban commander replied: “The Americans are infidels. The Pakistanis are Muslims.” The Afghan officer had no response.
Or in the shorter Afghan proverb form: “Over an infidel, be happy with a weak Muslim.”
The literature to date has respectfully neglected this explanation — in a country where people have eagerly tried to convert me to Islam, where religion defines daily life, and where insults to Islam instigate riots. The largest popular upheaval I witnessed firsthand in Afghanistan was not over the government’s mistreatment of the people or Pakistani perfidy. It was hundreds of angry villagers marching miles to the dusty bazaars of Garmser, protesting a rumor that an American had damaged a Koran….
Check Burry says
Then he should have stuck to advising on rearing ducks. Same for the dimwit who gave him the job.
Frank Anderson says
Another liar in a place of influence. It is obvious to everyone reading here he is a liar and is certainly practicing islamic deception.
Steven Grigsby says
What planet does this guy live on? Oh the planet of denial and obfuscation? It sickens me that General Grade and Flag Grade Officers, people at the Pentagon, people in the Dept of Def, and the WH haven’t even bothered to read the Quran in CHRONOLOGICAL order, gone to Bill Warner’s website (Political Islam) or even gave Robert Spener’s site a visit.
revereridesagarin says
He’s finally willing to admit that the religion is what motivates them. He is not yet — and may never be — willing to believe that the religion preaches evil, advocates tyranny and murder over those who will not submit. Why not? He presumably would not have trouble recognizing that the ideology of Nazism or Marxism is evil. But Islam has a god! There must be something fundamentally good behind it, no matter how much evil is done in its name.
Those who have successfully defeated Islamic forces in the past presumably were not hampered by this fear of “Islamophobia”. They did not merely observe that the enemy justified its actions by the dictates of its faith. They understood that to declare “unbelievers” worthy of death for no other reason is evil. The liklihood that the West will be able to do the same in times to save itself is not at an encouraging level.
JamesC. says
There is unforrunately a weird idea that if X is a religion, X must therefore be a good thing. Where this ridiculous idea comes from, one can only guess.
Frank Anderson says
JamesC., there is a vital rule and concept in US law that substance always controls form. You can call a cat a dog, but the substance of the animal is dog. Any organized practice can be called a religion, and claim the protections normally granted by the US Constitution. But that does not change that what may be a religion can also be a criminal conspiracy which is punishable both as a crime and a civil tort for the wrongs committed by any of its members. “The knowledge of one is the knowledge of all; The acts of one are the acts of all.” There is no maximum on the number of people who can be prosecuted for membership in a conspiracy, civil or criminal; and there is no time limit on the duration and acts that can be punished.
The case from the Southern District of Alabama, United States v. Gary Greenough, 609 F.Supp 1090 (S.D. Ala. 1985) offers an excellent explanation of the law. A conspiracy is described in elements. Each one of those elements is met by islam 1) An agreement 2) of 2 or more persons 3) for an illegal purpose or to use illegal means for an otherwise lawful purpose 4) ANY overt act by ANY participant in furtherance of the goal. Islam has killed between 250 and 1000 million people in 1400 years and increasing daily. Please read the case which is available for free online by searching its full name. False claims of religion do not shield criminal conduct from prosecution and conviction.
Raja says
Frank Anderson,
I have always been wondering if islam is an evil religion, why should it be called a religion at all?
Your reply to James has answered another important aspect of the consequences of carrying out criminal aspects of islam. Very useful to me.
Frank Anderson says
Raja, you can call a horse a dog, or a camel, but it will still be a horse. All 3 have their places and purposes. But what you call it and what it does are entirely different. Islam has declared war on the entire world and has killed and enslaved billions. It cannot change, moderate or reform. In order to stop it from killing and conquering us, we must accept that as long as it exists, we must fight. There is no negotiation, co-existence or peace. Islam is a criminal conspiracy to conquer, kill, loot and enslave the entire world.
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson says,
“False claims of religion do not shield criminal conduct from prosecution and conviction.”
True enough.
But even *accurate* claims of religion should “not shield criminal conduct from prosecution and conviction.”
Frank Anderson says
James, you are certainly correct. Look at the exact language of mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 United States Code Sections 1341 and 1343. Courts have ruled that even though a communication by itself is entirely true, if it is made for a fraudulent purpose, then the making is a crime. United States v. Otto, 742 F.2d 104 (3rd Cir. 1984), cert den, 469 U.S. 1196 (1985), United States v. Snowden, 770 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1985), cert den, 474 U.S. 1011 (1985). Islam’s fraudulent purpose in claiming to be a protected religion is world conquest, murder, slavery and looting. False can either be untrue or misleading for a fraudulent purpose. It is still a crime.
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson,
Thank you for your reply and clarification.
gravenimage says
Islam is a religion by definition. But this is an *evil* religion.
Frank Anderson says
AND a criminal conspiracy by every element and definition; deserving absolutely no protection other religions are entitled to under the United States Constitution and international treaties. The continuing denial of this fact only leads to confusion and delay in making decisions that can stop the slaughter.I did not make up the law. The law says. . . .
RichardL says
two days ago, an Iraqi friend who works as a consultant for the State Department gave us her two cents on the quality of people working there: it was bad before Biden, under Biden only “morons” are hired. She says not only do they have no idea what they are talking about, all their ideas are so idiotic that massive bloodshed is the inevitable result. Of course these morons know that they are right. Passionately. She is a leftist herself and would have voted for Biden.
I would bet that Biden is at the moment cutting a deal: get all Americans to the airport, leave the airport to us and we will release the billions we have frozen. Biden will make that deal and then will be removed from office and Harris will take over. Then the horror will begin in ernst.
rubiconcrest says
‘…Islam is a source of unity and inspiration, not of terrorism or atrocity.’ That is wrong. Islam is both and they cannot be separated. That is the problem.
Rsd says
Almost admits religion is the motivation but ignores that the Islamic ideal is for Islam (and sharia) to be the foundation of government instead of democratic voting or republican legislature, independent courts, etc. that means that political process comes from Islam, and there cannot be secular political or judicial process that is superior to Islam. Every nominally secular state with Islamic majority devolves eventually into Islamic rule and every Muslim minority in other states eventually grows enough to become a threat to the secular or ecumenical society.
pennant8 says
When Army Major Stephen Coughlin wrote his book “Catastrophic Failure – Blindfolding America in the face of Jihad,” even he probably didn’t foresee how prophetic the title would come to be. if you are not familiar with the book now would be a good time to catch up. It tells the story of the greatest national security scandal most American’s have never heard about. It documents how at one time the Pentagon actually had Islamic experts including Robert Spencer holding classes and seminars to educate the military on the true nature of the enemy we are up against. Muslim Brotherhood affiliates didn’t like this and lobbied the Obama administration to curtail it. It didn’t take much lobbying, one letter to John Brennan was enough to roll up the whole program.
James Lincoln says
pennant8,
To your point, here’s Stephen Coughlin with Jamie Glazov:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/new-glazov-gang-stephen-coughlin-on-catastrophic-failure
Infidel says
Dear Carter Malkasian
Islam does preach ‘unity, justice and peace’, but those terms don’t mean what you think they mean
Unity – Islam wants all the world to be united under allah. Not God, mind you (and that can never be, since every religion has their own deities), but Islam’s own allah, whose desires are spelt out by the teachings and actions of Mohammed
Justice – everything as preached by Shariah law. So if a muslim apostatizes, s/he deserves to be put to death. It’s not justice the way we think of it, but it is justice in islam
Peace – the state that one will ultimately attain after all the world converts to true islam. However note that since different sects of islam have different definitions of what ‘true islam’ is, that will take a while
gravenimage says
+1
Pray Hard says
These leftist vermin are destroying Western Civilization.
Frank Anderson says
That has been the “final, perfect, complete, unchangeable” goal and mission of islam for 1400 years. Is there anything to suggest anyone will change that goal when the action would be treated as reform or apostasy, punishable by death at the hands of any vigilante?
libertyORdeath says
You think these people woulda thought the Inquisition was about hatred of middle aged women? Or maybe an irrational fear of black cats?
These are the people advising half the political parties in the West? No wonder they’re so damn sure about “white rage”, “islamophobia” and climate alarmism.
“Certainty is missing the point entirely”
-Anne Lamott
gravenimage says
Alas, Anne Lamott is pretty clueless about Jihad. These were her suggestions for the proper reaction to the Jihad attacks in Paris a few years ago:
“So after an appropriate time of being stunned, in despair, we show up. Maybe we ask God for help. We do the next right thing. We buy or cook a bunch of food for the local homeless. We return phone calls, library books, smiles. We make eye contact with others, and we go to the market and flirt with old or scary unusual people who seem lonely.”
I’m sure her “flirting” with Jihadists would solve everything…sarc/off
James Lincoln says
So, according to the feature article:
“Senior advisor to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shocked to discover Taliban motivated by Islam”
What should be more shocking is that Carter Malkasian is shocked…
TruthWFree says
As a Christian who has read the Quran and over 30 books on Islam since 9/11/2001 plus I am aware the the Quran, supposedly the allah god’s revelation, denies Jesus Christ’s divinity and death on the cross, which are lies against the Gospels. I have concluded that Islam is Satan’s religion and that Muhammad was getting his revelations from Satan. Yes Muhammad could have made it all up but to last for 1400 years, I suspect Mo did have Satanic revelations.
gravenimage says
Senior advisor to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shocked to discover Taliban motivated by Islam
………………….
Surprised that Carter Malkasian ever figured even part of this out, given the denial that is so common these days. By his surname, he sounds as though he is of Armenian heritage–really, he *should* know something about the threat of Islam.
BTeboe says
The only way to defeat an enemy who would die to kill you, is to kill them first. Islam is a heinous political ideology that uses law and religion to keep the adherents under control 24/7/365 from cradle to grave. Instead of locking up Taliban prisoners they should’ve executed them. People will scream and moan – that is not who we are. Well we better learn to be that way or we will be living under the thumb of this totalitarian theocracy. Islam does not assimilate and are little bit like the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.