Stephan Jensen Profile picture
Jun 27, 2023 11 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Once you scratch the surface of the Taliban's propaganda, there is nothing at all "traditional" or "national" about their movement.

The Taliban is an utterly modern movement, mostly based on 20th-century political ideas and foreign religious teachings.

1/11
The political idea that a group of mullahs should control government has no traditional precedent in Afghanistan - or anywhere in the Islamic world.

It is a riff on radical Islamism. a 20th-century *political* ideology brought to Afghanistan by academics in the 1960s.

2/11
Democracy, even in its modern form, has far deeper roots in Afghanistan than the Taliban's theocratic system: a form of government introduced for the first time ever in the 1990s.

The political "traditions" the Taliban claim to represent are barely two decades old.

3/11
The Afghan Republic's democratic system of government was a continuation of the country's constitutional monarchy in the 1960s.

Further back, it built on long-standing, traditional, ideas about popular sovereignty.

Democracy was the "traditional" choice, not theocracy.

4/11
Religiously, too, the Taliban's claims to represent "tradition" are weak at best.

Their extreme puritanism draws on "Deobandi" Islam, which appeared in India the late 19th century, inspired by 18th century Saudi Wahabism.

It's neither traditional, nor from Afghanistan.

5/11
"Deobandi" Islam had never had a strong foothold in Afghanistan.

Albeit highly conservative, traditionally Afghan Islam tended to be far more tolerant, mystical, and oriented towards Sufism.

This only changed during the 1980s, after the War in Afghanistan had begun.

6/11
The biggest driver of change was the huge influx of Afghan refugees into Pakistan during the 1980s, where thousands of Saudi-funded Deobandi madrassas were set up around the refugee camps.

The roots of the Taliban's religion are not Afghan villages but foreign madrassas.

7/11
The hundreds of thousands of young boys attending these madrassas became steeped in the extremist religious thinking that came to define the Taliban, and became the core of its soldiers in the 1990s.

They craved "tradition" precisely because they didn't have any.

8/11
The tragic irony is that the Taliban - a movement as old as the Spice Girls, inspired by 19th century religious ideas from India and 20th century political ideas from Egypt - has been very successful at passing itself of as the standard bearers of "traditional Afghanistan".

9/11
The fact that so many in the West believed the Taliban's propaganda, and idiotically accepted them as a "traditional" and "nationalist" resistance against a supposedly foreign-imposed attempt to "modernise" Afghanistan against its will is a big part of why they won.

10/11
Nevertheless, it remains a lie. Despite its many flaws, the Afghan Republic was far more true to Afghanistan's political and religious traditions than the utterly modern Taliban movement can ever be in its current form.

11/11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephan Jensen

Stephan Jensen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @StephanAJensen

Feb 5
The current US-Poland diplomatic crisis is a other symptom of a transatlantic sea-change.

President Trump has made catatonic displays of sycophancy a requirement for working in and around his administration.

He is now trying to impose the same requirement on his allies.

1/7🧵
Say what you will about diplomatic finesse:

Merely declining to support Trump's peace prize nomination and soberly explaining why is not an "outrageous insult"

Calling the allied soldiers who died fighting with and for America "nothing" really is an outrageous insult.

2/7🧵 Image
The fact that the US ambassador is now turning this into a diplomatic crisis is instructive.

He knows and everyone knows it's insane. That's the whole point.

They are demanding that people pretend it isn't, as a test of personal loyalty to Trump.

3/7🧵 Image
Read 7 tweets
Jan 27
Dmitriev's "peace" proposal is nothing of the sort - it is a Trojan Horse designed to deliver russia the victory they cannot achieve on the battlefield, and set the stage for renewed russian aggression.

1/7 Image
It is a huge mistake to believe that russia, like us, think peace is a goal in itself.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the russian mindset.

They seek to dominate and expand.

Everything else: peace or war, life or death, is utterly irrelevant to them.

2/7 Image
The russians are struggling on the battlefield.

They are running out of materiel, are starting to experience shortages of ammunition, and are taking huge **and increasing** casualties.

And they still control far less territory in Ukraine than they did in early 2022.

3/7 Image
Read 7 tweets
Sep 27, 2023
🇦🇫 THREAD:

The people arguing for abandoning Afghanistan forget that we tried this thirty years ago...

...with disastrous consequences - both for Afghanistan and the rest of the world.

9/11 was just one of the results of pretending Afghanistan didn't exist in the 1990s.

1/🧵


Image
Image
Image
Image
2001 was not the first time in modern history that the US + allies got involved militarily in Afghanistan.

Albeit at arm's length, the West and others heavily backed the Mujahideen guerillas fighting the Afghan communist government and their Soviet allies in the 1980s.

2/🧵 Image
That struggle against the communists in Afghanistan was successful.

The last great proxy conflict of the cold war - it even contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union itself.

But at a tremendous cost - after defeating the communists, Afghanistan was utterly broken.

3/🧵
Image
Image
Read 17 tweets
Sep 26, 2023
🇦🇫 THREAD:
Afghanistan was not destroyed by post-9/11 war, or even (first and foremost) by civil war in the 1990s.

Afghanistan was destroyed by the Soviet intervention of the 1980s.

More Afghans died *every year* from 1979-89 than in all the 20 years after 2001 *combined.*

1/4 Image
In 1979 Afghanistan's population was about 14 million people. By 1989:

- ca. 1.5 million had died
- ca. 1.5 million had become invalid
- ca. 5 million people had become refugees.

In total, that's 50% of Afghanistan's pre-war population.

2/4


Image
Image
Image
Image
More civilians died in Afghanistan from 1979-89 than in the UK, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Finland *combined* during World War 2.

Those countries had a population of ca. 150 million people in 1940 - more than ten times Afghanistan in 1979.

3/4 Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 26, 2023
One of the most tragic aspects of the West's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan is how "well-meaning" Western progressives thought our disengagement would be the solution to all of Afghanistan's problems.

Instead, it handed Afghanistan to the Taliban.

1/8 Image
By peddling narcissistic arguments that all of Afghanistan's problems had to do with Western involvement, the "anti-war" lobby gave credence to the most ethically and strategically irresponsible policy possible:

Legitimizing the Taliban and betraying our allies.

2/8 Image
Now, the very same "anti-war" narcissists are making the very same arguments about Ukraine:

"If only we stop supporting the people defending their country and legitimate the claims of the terrorist aggressors everything will be fine."

It's as mad as it sounds.

3/8
Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Aug 1, 2023
THREAD:

Trump might win in 2024.

That means Europe must start preparing *now* if we want to avoid disaster in Ukraine and war in 🇪🇺

By 2024 we must be able to:

- Continue supplying Ukraine on our own

- Deter Russia from further aggression with or without the US in NATO

1/🧵
We dont know if Trump will win, but he is currently the most likely person to be the Republican nominee.

And Biden is weak electorally. All things considered, I'd give it a 30% chance at this point.

Thats a lot, because the consequences could be extremely distruptive.

2/🧵
What would the return of Trump mean for Europe?

Two huge things:

a) Trump is ultra-sceptical about aid to Ukraine, and loves Putin. He may *want* Putin to win.

b) Trump is ultra-sceptical about NATO. Even if the US stays in the alliance, article 5 will be under question.

3/🧵 Image
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(