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
🇦🇫 THREAD:
Every single Afghan frontline soldier or officer I have spoken to has told me they were desperately short of ammunition, fuel, water, food, and other supplies during the decisive fighting in 2021.
Why? Was choking off the Afghan forces also part of the Doha deal?
1/🧵
At the point when the Afghan Republican defence forces started collapse in July-Aug 2021, many units had been fighting for weeks or months without meaningful resupply.
They were not just short of ammunition, but forces to eat expired field rations and drink unsanitary water.
2/🧵
There were many reasons why logistics got difficult, but blaming it all on corruption is a cop-out.
The major problems began as a result of the Doha deal, which massively restricted Afghan forces' offensive operations, making it easy for the Taliban to cut off supply lines.
3/🧵
THREAD:
No conflict has mattered more for world history at the turn of millennium than the war in Afghanistan.
Almost invisibly, but in plain sight, the 43-year War in Afghanistan has been the pivot around which the most critical events of recent history have turned.
1/🧵
Western cynics say "Why does this faraway country Afghanistan matter to us at all?"
The truth is, it's almost impossible to explain, but whatever has happened in Afghanistan since it's war broke out in 1978 has had seismic consequences for the rest of the world. 2/🧵
The fall of the Soviet Union had many causes - but its intervention in the War in Afghanistan acted as an accelerator to processes which might otherwise have ended differently.
The consequence was a total re-shaping of the global order at the end of the 20th century.
3/🧵
🇦🇫THREAD:
Most people today take it for granted that the war in Afghanistan began in 2001.
But that's complete nonsense.
By 2001 the war in Afghanistan had already been raging for 23 years, and caused the country to be utterly transformed by violence.
1/🧵
Many commentators also un-troubledly assume that the Taliban were in complete control of Afghanistan in 2001.
By extension, they also assume that the Taliban had won Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s and brought peace to the country.
Both assumptions are wrong.
2/🧵
In fact, one of the last books to be published in English about Afghanistan *before* 9/11 - in August 2001 - was called "Afghanistan's Endless War."
In early 2001 Afghanistan was both already at war and still at war - and had been so for a long time.
3/🧵 uwapress.uw.edu/book/978029598…
🇦🇫THREAD:
The poisonous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been at the heart of the violence and conflict over the last 45 years, and before.
I'd go as far as to argue that without the "Durand Line", there would not have been a war in Afghanistan at all.
1/🧵
The so-called "Durand Line", named after the British civil servant who led the survey mission, was drawn up in the late 1890s as the boundary between British India and Afghanistan.
2/🧵
Durand's counterpart, the notoriously authoritarian Abdur Rahman Khan, was deeply skeptical of Durand's proposed boundary, and initially refused to sign the agreement.
3/🧵
THREAD:
During the first 75 years of the 20th century, 🇦🇫#Afghanistan experienced less war and political unrest than almost every country in the West, including eg. 🇳🇴Norway, 🇧🇪Belgium, and 🇫🇮Finland.
1/🧵
It's a common trope re. the War in #Afghanistan that "Afghanistan has always been that way."
Meaning: a place of war, violence, tyranny and chaos.
But that's total nonsense.
Afghanistan became "that way" recently. And it did so as a result of modern ideological conflicts.
2/🧵
That doesn't mean that Afghanistan prior to the outbreak of war nearly 45 years ago didn't have it's problems, or didn't experience political unrest or war. But relative to most countries we think of as paragons of peace and stability today, it experienced very little of it.
3/🧵
🇦🇫THREAD:
Afghanistan implemented its first democratic constitution in 1964 - without any outside pressure or interference.
I still keep hearing nonsense about how democracy in Afghanistan was a "Western" project that began after 2001. This is utter nonsense.
1/🧵
For most of the 20th century, Afghanistan was a monarchy. In 1963, its king was Zahir Shah, who by that time had already reigned for 30 years, having risen to the throne at age 19 when his father was assassinated by the supporter of a political rival.
2/🧵
But just like the UK or Norway, the government itself was led by a prime minister formally appointed by the king and ruling on his behalf.
Some of those prime ministers - such as Zahir's cousin Daoud - became very powerful men, arguably more so than the king himself.